LGP13

Mike Lange's voice and game/goal calls for the Pittsburgh Penguins have spanned decades in the Pittsburgh area. Listening to him call all those games over the years was instrumental in growing hockey in Pittsburgh. I know it is one of the reasons I fell in love with the game, and I'm sure a lot of the people on this forum as well. 

Rest in Peace Legend. 

41 minutes ago, Pa Hockey said:

That is ludicrous I have no idea where any of the top 30 play East or West for a 2nd team and dont care 

North Allegheny High School AAA beat St Andrews Prep AAA Midget Team in a great hockey OT 11 player SO on their way to the Hoosier Cup last weekend at Notre Dame 

Im having fun watching this and doing ok as well...............if hockey would collaborate instead of compete against each other we would do alot better ?

I have a plan to grow hockey into college and juniors  instead of killing  it .....................but AAA Programs would have to listen  Minnesota has and we all know whats going on there 

I think your first sentence proves my point. Are you saying that "club" hockey are "2nd" teams to school hockey?

While I wish you were correct in that statement, and I wish hockey was big enough in Pittsburgh to have the same model as Minnesota hockey, it just isn't. The fact that you are totally oblivious to any hockey outside of scholastic teams and label club teams as "2nd teams" kind of contradicts your whole "if hockey would collaborate instead of compete against each other" statement. Try to embrace all hockey instead of just the hockey you want to promote if you really want to grow hockey.

 

That being said, your list is a (opinionated) list of the top 30 kids that play scholastic hockey. A list of the "top" kids in western and eastern pa would require you to actually look into all the kids that play hockey anywhere in the state and make a list from that. Most of the really good kids either have no interest in playing school hockey or gain nothing but risk of injury. 

23 hours ago, Pa Hockey said:

ALL High School Sports are on the table and his specialty is High School Hockey. Do me a favor and join the movement to get hockey and this forum out of the PAHL Kool Aid Stone Ages ! 

This is a curious statement. It is almost as if you are saying High school hockey is better than PAHL(club) hockey, and we need to embrace that school hockey is becoming and will exceed club hockey as the preferred route of players and parents? The fact that you promote school hockey so vigorously on here (not a bad thing, any promotion of hockey is great in my eyes), and you made a post ranking the "top" state players, and yet there is no PPE or high-end AAA kids(club) on your list is pretty interesting. I was just going to leave it alone and not comment, but then I saw this comment where you are seemingly "calling out" club hockey or bragging that school hockey is someway superior. Rename your post to top 25 scholastic hockey players or something because this ranking is nowhere close to accurate.

On 1/31/2025 at 12:46 PM, Pa Hockey said:

coming soon

Can't wait to see this....

I wonder if I made the cut, I had a pretty impressive beer league game a few weeks back.

10 hours ago, hockeydadx3 said:

I heard Pittsburgh Hornets youth hockey is coming back for Bantam and above. Has anyone heard any details on this?

So what's the inside information you have, and why are you here trying to garner interest?

It's a half built website, with links that don't work and no information to provide that was created a month ago. I have a hard time believing you just happened to stumble across it. 

Instead of getting us to speculate, why not just tell us what the motive is?

Good read on the changes coming for hockey.

North American Junior Hockey Reaches a Crossroads - MYHockey (myhockeyrankings.com)

By Scott Lowe – MYHockeyRankings.com

Every year, the junior hockey landscape in North America undergoes numerous changes during the offseason. But this month, as the 2024-25 season opens for leagues around North America following another tumultuous spring and summer, junior hockey appears to be heading toward a major crossroads.

This crossroads starts at the top with the Canadian Hockey League, also known as Major Junior, and filters all the way down to the lowest pay-to-play Tier 3 leagues in the United States.

While the Tier 1 United States Hockey League (USHL) and Tier 2 North American Hockey League (NAHL), the top pro and college developmental leagues in the U.S., continue to lead the way in America when it comes to player development and NCAA commitments, those leagues are certain to feel some residual effects over the next several years. So will the Junior A leagues in Canada such as the British Columbia Hockey League (BCHL) and the nine provincial leagues that make up the Canadian Junior Hockey League (CJHL).

NCAA men’s hockey programs also are likely be to impacted in a major way as an entire new pool of players appears on the verge of becoming available for Division I teams to fight over.

While it’s already incredibly difficult for players to advance to play Division I hockey, it probably will become even more challenging for young players to attain that level in the future.

The 64 NCAA Division I programs don’t have enough roster spots available for players capable of playing at that level as it stands, so when they get access to even more high-level players, Division I-capable players will trickle down to Division II and Division III programs. That will lift the level of play in those divisions to an all-time high while also making it even more difficult for players who normally could play for programs at that level to get there.

This already has started happening at the Division III level in the wake of the extra “COVID year,” which was available to all players who were enrolled when hockey seasons were shut down or cut short because of the pandemic. The ease of player movement between programs created by the transfer portal also has contributed.

Players who were at the bottom of NCAA Division I rosters saw their ability to move up the lineup disappear as seniors on their teams opted to play a fifth year while others transferred in for their final seasons. Many of those players – as well as players who would have been recruited by Division I programs in previous years – began looking for opportunities to play right away at Division II or III schools.

That caused a similar ripple effect among players at the bottom of those teams’ rosters as their opportunity to move into the lineup may have vanished. Some of those players looked to transfer to other NCAA teams, while others chose to search for a strong college club hockey program where they could play right away.

Scenarios such as these seem likely to repeat themselves in the future.

The good news is that the number of NCAA Division I men’s hockey programs has risen from 60-64 in recent years with the addition of schools such as Lindenwood, Long Island University, St. Thomas and Augustana. And in recent years there have been at least one or two annual program additions at the Division III level with more already announced for the future.

Despite that expansion, the total of NCAA athletic programs at all levels sponsoring varsity hockey only should be approaching about 160 by the time the dust settles in the years ahead. Compare that to the number of North American junior hockey leagues and teams that currently send players on to play for NCAA programs:

 

USHL – 16 teams, including USNTDP 18U

NAHL – 35 teams

BCHL – 21 teams

CJHL Jr. A – 118 teams

NCDC (USA) – 21 teams

EHL (USA) – 21 teams

USPHL Premier (USA/Canada) – 83 teams

NA3HL (USA) – 35 teams

 

That alone adds up to 350 teams full of players hoping to play NCAA hockey. That’s more than twice the number of institutions that sponsor the sport.

Of course, not every single player on those teams is trying to get to that level, but those numbers do not include players on New England Prep and Minnesota High School teams who may be able to advance directly to the NCAA level or foreign players not playing in North American junior leagues.

In the United States alone there are another 50 or so lower-level Tier 3 pay-to-play junior teams competing at the Eastern Hockey League Premier (EHLP) and United States Premier Hockey League Elite (USPHL Elite) levels that have no issue selling the NCAA dream to players who likely have little or no chance of getting there. On top of that, there are more than 200 additional lower-level Canadian junior programs.

That paints a picture of just how hard it is today for young hockey players with dreams of playing NCAA hockey. It becomes even more difficult for players who don’t live or play in traditional hockey markets.

My part of the country, the Baltimore/Washington metro area, produces just a handful of NCAA hockey commits annually, and most of the players who get Division I offers leave home at a pretty young age to pursue high-level AAA or prep opportunities. Several of the players who have committed to Division I programs also have been decommitted in recent years.  

Unfortunately, it appears that advancing to that level is about to get even harder within the next few years. And that brings us to our junior hockey crossroads.

Rylan Masterson, a Canadian junior hockey player, filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against the NCAA and 10 universities in August, arguing that the NCAA is violating antitrust laws by preventing any player who has appeared in a CHL hockey game from also playing in the NCAA.

NCAA bylaws state that “an individual shall not be eligible for intercollegiate athletics in a sport if the individual ever competed on a professional team."

Because some players in the CHL – made up of the Ontario Hockey League (OHL), the Western Hockey League (WHL) and the Quebec Maritime Hockey League (QMJHL) – have signed contracts with NHL teams, the NCAA has determined that any players who have competed in the CHL are ineligible to play NCAA hockey.

Masterson has played for the Fort Erie Meteors of the Greater Ontario Junior Hockey League (GOJHL) for three years after appearing in two preseason games for the OHL's Windsor Spitfires in 2022. By NCAA rule, those two games make him ineligible.

The individual schools named in the lawsuit are Canisius University, Niagara University, Rochester Institute of Technology, Boston College, Boston University, the University of Denver, Quinnipiac University, the University of Notre Dame, Stonehill College and the University of St. Thomas.

The suit, which was filed at U.S. District Court in Buffalo, argues that other professional athletes, such as Olympic swimmers, have received payments based on their athletic prowess and athletes who have played hockey in European professional leagues have retained their NCAA eligibility. Other arguments put forth contend that the rule discourages competition between the CHL and NCAA for the best North American players and unfairly forces 16-year-old hockey players to decide between hockey and pursuing their sport and education at an NCAA institution. It also claims that the rule constitutes a “group boycott,” which also would be an antitrust violation.

Further clouding the issue are the massive endorsement deals that NCAA athletes now are permitted to seek in return for use of their name, image and likeness. It has been widely reported that top college athletes in some sports are receiving payments that exceed six figures annually.

In 2023 the NCAA reportedly told Division I hockey coaches that they had the ability to change the rule by voting. This topic apparently was revisited this year, but no vote has been taken.

It has been rumored for a while now that the NCAA and CHL were in discussions to modify or eliminate the rule. This possibility led to the announcement last week by Braxton Whitehead that he had become the first CHL player to verbally commit to an NCAA Division I program. Whitehead, who plays for the WHL’s Regina Pats, said he plans on joining the Arizona State University program for the 2025-26 academic year.

NCAA Division I athletic programs notoriously search for any possible recruiting edge over their rivals, so it’s no surprise that Arizona State made a verbal offer in hopes of getting ahead of the curve. Others are sure to follow, putting more pressure on the NCAA to negotiate with the CHL or to settle the lawsuit.

Junior and college coaches have said privately that they think CHL players will be permitted to play NCAA hockey within the next two years.

Then what?

Back to the crossroads.

In the past, top players with aspirations of playing NCAA Division I hockey had turned to leagues such as the USHL, BCHL and NAHL to develop by playing against like-minded higher-end players while retaining their college eligibility. In essence, a rule change would create an open competition for the top hockey players in North America.

It's likely that the National Hockey League and other top professional prospects would gravitate to one league – possibly the CHL or USHL – with a trickle-down effect to the other leagues. With more high-level players eligible to play NCAA hockey, it’s likely that fewer players from leagues such as the BCHL and NAHL would receive Division I offers.

Fewer Division I opportunities for those leagues means that more of their players likely would trickle down to the Division II and III levels (currently there are six Division II programs and about 85 at the Division III level). That means leagues such as the National Collegiate Development Conference (NCDC), the OJHL, the Central Canada Hockey League (CCHL), the Alberta Junior Hockey League (AJHL) and a few other leagues, which traditionally send a lesser number of players to NCAA Division I programs, might become strictly Division III feeders.

Then what becomes of a pay-to-play Tier 3 junior league like the Eastern Hockey League (EHL), which traditionally commits about 150 players to NCAA Division III programs annually? The United States Premier Hockey League (USPHL Premier) and North American Tier 3 Hockey League (NA3HL) also move players to Division III programs.

The EHL’s commitment numbers likely would take a substantial hit, while the others might see their commitments almost dry up completely.

Is it possible for these leagues to even exist when some of their teams charge up to $13,000 for tuition before additional living and other expenses are considered? Is there a sustainable market for players who will have to commit between $15,000 and $20,000 that could be used for college to play hockey and put off school for a year in hopes of achieving something that may only be remotely realistic?

And what about the lower-level American Tier 3 “pay-to-play” leagues that are marketed as feeder leagues for the EHL and USPHL Premier and already are selling what amounts to an impossible dream. It’s debatable as to whether those leagues are even necessary at this point, so should they even be permitted to exist in the future if CHL players are allowed to play NCAA hockey in the next few years?

The EHL, USPHL Premier and NA3HL likely will continue to move some players on to the play for NCAA Division III teams, but the majority could become top college club hockey prospects for American Collegiate Hockey Association (ACHA) and Amateur Athletic Union (AAU) programs.

The level of play in those leagues continues to rise, and those programs offer more great hockey opportunities than ever for strong players who want to attend the school of their choice and still compete at a high level. But it remains to be seen if the trickle down that would be created by CHL players being NCAA eligible would raise the profile of the ACHA and AAU enough for families of young players to deem it worthwhile to spend thousands of dollars to play juniors and put off college for the chance to compete for a college club team.

Many of the top college club programs already prefer their players to have junior hockey experience, but with hundreds of colleges offering club teams, there are far more that offer an opportunity to play a high level for players who are ready to attend college the fall after high-school graduation.

We will have to wait and see if the level of play continues to rise across the board as this situation plays out. If seems likely that it would and that more club programs might recruit strictly junior players in the future. If that’s the case, there may still be a strong enough market to keep some pay-to-play junior leagues afloat.

Even if that happens, though, there always will be hundreds of other club programs happy to have good hockey players come directly from high school to join their teams. The number of men’s ACHA and AAU teams is approaching 550 as the 2024-25 season begins.

Another possibility is that more NCAA Division I institutions with larger athletic programs and other smaller schools that have enjoyed hockey success at the ACHA level might add men’s hockey as a varsity sport if more high-end CHL players become available.

Arizona State has built a strong Division I program in a short period of time, and in the past few years, smaller schools such as Lindenwood, Long Island University, Augustana and St. Thomas have joined the party. There have been rumors for years about strong ACHA programs at big schools such as Illinois and Arizona making the jump to NCAA Division I.

Also, the increasing popularity of hockey in non-traditional markets and extensive Division I conference realignment in recent years have led to whispers about large brand-name athletic programs such as USC and UCLA potentially adding hockey at some point. In addition, many wonder openly if the athletic powerhouses in the Southeastern Conference such as Georgia, Kentucky, Alabama, Tennessee and South Carolina might take a stab at Division I hockey given their rabid fanbases and the strong followings some of their club teams already have.

That type of expansion doesn’t happen overnight, however, so for the short term the expectation is that NCAA hockey’s quality of play is going to continue to trend upward at all levels while the opportunities for players who traditionally might have been able to ascend to those levels are likely to shrink.

Another factor that may limit the number of overall hockey opportunities is the new roster and scholarship limit that the NCAA has adopted. The maximum number of full scholarships a Division I college hockey team can offer is increasing from 18 to 26, but teams that opt in for the increased scholarships will have a roster limit of 26. Only a small number of Division I programs currently roster fewer than 27 players, and many carry between 28 and 32.

Obviously, those programs that opt in to the new plan will have fewer available roster spots than in the past.

While the impact of allowing CHL players to have NCAA eligibility should be obvious at the top of the junior food chain, the trickle-down effect will create crossroads situations at multiple levels. It’s not clear what might become of a “tweener” junior league such as the NCDC, which already is at a crossroads of its own.

The NCDC was established in 2017 as a tuition-free option for junior players in the northeastern United States. The level of play initially was very high, slightly below the Tier 2 NAHL, with some teams capable of competing at that level, and above the EHL. Because the NCDC did not charge, it was widely considered to be Tier 2 league even though the NAHL is the only USA Hockey-sanctioned Tier 2 junior league in the U.S.

It was thought that offering a tuition-free junior option in a hockey hotbed would convince some of the region’s top prospects and younger Division I commits to stay home for their developmental years. Having those players in the league, it was thought, would lure other top prospects from around North America to play in a location that is within easy driving distance for dozens of NCAA college hockey coaches.

In the early days of the NCDC, teams such as the New Jersey Hitmen, Boston Jr. Bruins and Islanders Hockey Club each carried 12-15 players who already were committed to Division I programs. Other commits were sprinkled throughout the 12-team league, and another 10-12 would receive Division I offers while playing in the NCDC. So, early on there might have been 50-plus players who were considered legitimate Division I prospects competing in the league.

Unfortunately, while the level of play in the NCDC was very high right away, the league never attracted that many additional Division I prospects from other parts of North America. Those players preferred to play in the NAHL or the BCHL, more proven leagues that played at a slightly higher level and had a long history of sending players to Division I.

Instead of becoming an NCAA Division I feeder league, the NCDC operated as a very good college developmental league that sent the bulk of its players on to play for strong Division III programs

The challenges of funding tuition-free teams without being able to sell many tickets in a region where people could attend a college or pro hockey game almost any night of the week proved to be too much for some owners. It seemed like every year there were ownership changes and NCDC teams relocating, but the number of competing teams never dipped below 12.

For the 2023-24 season the NCDC added a Mountain Division, which currently has six teams based in Colorado, Utah, Idaho and Wyoming, and this past summer three more New England-based teams were invited to come over from the EHL.

Interestingly, those three additions are joining the league as experimental pay-to-play teams. They will continue to charge tuition like they did as members of the EHL, while the remaining 18 league teams will offer free tuition.

The Mountain Division teams play in more traditional junior hockey markets, and some of them help fund their programs through ticket sales. That provides a different business model for the league.

With many of its team owners having found it difficult to fund tuition-free junior teams over the years, the addition of three pay-to-play teams and the existence of a division with the ability to potentially provide a more sustainable business model brings the NCDC to an interesting crossroads of its own amid much speculation about its future.

Will the league go back to being completely tuition free or might the NCDC choose to reinvent itself as a more-affordable pay-to-play option in hopes of becoming the preeminent developer of NCAA Division III players if the landscape changes going forward? Another potential option would be for the NCDC to have separate tuition-free divisions and “pay-to-play” divisions.  

At this point all we can do is speculate, but it seems likely that some major changes are on the horizon for North American junior hockey. How extensive those changes will be and the subsequent fallout that might be felt by junior leagues and at the various levels of American college hockey will be easier to assess as the future relationship between the NCAA and CHL begins to take shape.

47 minutes ago, HatTrick said:

https://esmark.com/esmark-inc-founder-james-p-bouchard-announces-retirement-after-40-years-in-the-steel-industry/

I'm more intrigued by the company. 

The website is pretty basic and underwhelming, but they claim to be some giant conglomerate. I've never heard of Esmark steel, aviation or anything else other than the hockey club, and I have worked in the steel industry. They are "formerly" traded on Nasdaq, that checks out because they aren't listed on there. They have 1 picture of a semi-truck from different angles with an Esmark tarp on it on their steel business site... I've never seen an Esmark truck on the roads. The aviation site is even worse with 2 pictures, one of a plane on the runway and another of a plane's cockpit. Their owner claimed they had enough money in the bank to buy US steel with cash a few months ago (7.8 B). I've looked on LinkedIn, Indeed and a few other job sites, and the best I can come up with is they have or have had at MOST 20 employees across their businesses and no job openings posted publicly. The manufacturing and fabrication site looks the most legit, but even it has text over pictures that make it difficult to read and again, no job postings or anyone on job sites that claim they work there.

Are they just investors that invest in all these different industries and slap their name on them? Even if they are, the businesses they are claiming to invest in don't really seem to exist or be successful. I'm genuinely confused...can anyone help me out on this?

22 hours ago, Duster19 said:

At first glance hard to believe this happens in a spring game, BUT looking at those rosters posted above it is clear that the 2010 esmark and venegance kids smoked the PPE 10 kids on the other team 3-0.  How embarrassing for them following the 2010 PPEs losing way at Nationals.  So goon it up w late illegal hits and then the fighting after.

2010 esmark and venegance kids #WINNING!

Obviously a troll.

"Smoked"? 3-0... lol okay.

There was 3 PPE kids. The hits looked okay to me, but called penalties so agree to disagree.

What I find more interesting is you came to an anonymous forum to gloat and antagonize the short comings of 13 year old kids.

You're a real hero, we should get together so you can tell me about all the victories and accolades that you've accomplished. Let me know when so I can block my day out, I'm sure it's extensive.

#FCKINLOSER!!!

Curious about this as well. Wasn't personalized, "first invitees taken, limited spots!" Anyone have input or trust my intuition?

40 minutes ago, Macky85 said:

Based on everything that has transpired at Alpha and the merger of SCIR/PV, I can't see how their prices aren't going up. With the other organizations that played out of there now playing elsewhere or being absorbed, Alpha will likely raise their rates which will trickle down to the teams still calling it home. Combine that with the reality of year over year cost increase, the Tier 2 program fees have to increase. 

I hope they don't, so they can stay competitive with the other nearby organizations! As was already stated, if their mixed year fees increase much more, are you really getting what you're paying for?

Do organizations typically wait until after tryouts to post their upcoming season fees? I've previously not paid much attention.

Little information is being shared with families. 

No, they are usually common knowledge before tryouts as it is one of the main deciding factors. If it isn't, then there is a huge red flag.

1 hour ago, Elitedaddy said:

The 2010 Pens team didn’t look top tier even though they won. Perhaps it wasn’t their best effort. They won a game 2-0 and another was one pass away from being tied 3-3 going into the third. That team is the most vulnerable for 14u. A team with size and one that passes well will beat them. They had one game that presented an expected outcome. 

 

Outscoring the next team in your bracket by 6 goals, only giving up 4 goals in 4 games and having a +17 goal differential seems okay...

 

How'd the team that "impressed" you do?

1 hour ago, RJUSHL said:

Have Mid-Am dev camp tryout invites been sent?

Yes.

8 minutes ago, hockeyisgreat said:

When you were officiating did you ever get an evaluation? Just curious?

No, I helped ref adult leagues for my local rink like 15 yrs ago.

3 minutes ago, hockeyisgreat said:

Care to share where you found the info you were looking for?

I left an email with PGM off Alpha's site. They handled the scheduling.

 

I emailed the officiating director for MidAm.

 

And I called and left a message officiating advancement director for USA Hockey.

 

Probably won't get anywhere, but worth a shot.

7 minutes ago, TheRightCall said:

You lost everyone when you resorted to calling out someone by name. Since you know so much about the game, step up and get your ref credentials next year. You can show everyone how it is to be done. Wait, we will get the "I am too busy" excuse. I am sure Livebarn shows you as such a respectful person on the bench.

I have ref'd for like 4-5 years. Don't do anymore because I coach and my job pays me enough I don't need the 60$ spending money.

 

I don't care if I lost anyone or not. I'm making people aware. Also, I came here asking questions about standards and what the procedures are for quality control.

 

Now that I've debunked your assumptions, now what?

 

I was being respectful, you won't know that though because the next excuse will be that you can't hear what is being said when I ask for explainations.

 

Your just a troll and mad I called out one of your fellow officials for being a shitty ref. I get it, you don't want that to be the norm. Next thing you know everyone is on here blasting every officials' name. I understand your frustration and how you want to be defensive, bottom line is treat people with respect and don't just show up to collect your 75$, maybe explain to kids why calls are made or what you saw. Basically, don't be an elitist jerkoff because you have the power to make calls and throw people out. 

 

I'm done with replying here as I found the information I was looking for. Have a great day!

13 hours ago, TheRightCall said:

Figured you would respond with something like this. Clown. 

I responded like this or ignored your post because it serves no purpose. My post has questions and facts that happened. Every word of your post is false or an assumption, why waste my time defending myself because you are butthurt that I called out a ref for having a bad game?

I don't know about you, but at my job I have to answer to someone if I don't perform or do my job to my company's standards. 

12 minutes ago, TheRightCall said:

What a classless post by another angry parent trying to live vicariously through his kid. Calling out an official while hiding behind a message board handle, nice. Who are you to question a call? A missed call? Gimme a break. If you are such a knowledgable hockey person, why not start officiating so you can give back to the game. You would most likely no be able to handle even a 10U B game.

Lol okay bud

What are the standards that referees are held to? 

I agree that most of the time refs are just doing their job and allowing the kids to enjoy playing the game they love to play. I also agree with (for the most part) refs could really careless who wins and loses and they don't go into games thinking positively or negatively about the teams.

I am however curious as to what standards they are held to? They have the power to throw players, fans, coaches out of games that people are paying money to attend or provide to their kids. What about when the refs are terrible? Nothing? Deal with it? 

I had one of the worst refs referee my game. Missed calls, weak calls against, goal called that clearly hit the post (overwrote the other ref and made the call from center ice), and yes I got thrown out for arguing the calls after dealing with it for 2 periods. It is humorous because I knew this ref was going to be terrible because he ref'd adult league games back when I played and was terrible at them as well. Now all the info gave above, I would like to know how a guy that seemly likes to get his rocks off on agitating young kids instead of talking to them and explaining infractions. Is power hungry about the fact he can throw people out and affect games instead of just ref'ing them fairly, and now seemly has the ability to keep coaches from coaching their teams is allowed to just be his word is law with no recourse?

Normally, I laugh at posts like this and write them off, but I felt like I owed everyone to get it out there.

2 minutes ago, YardSale said:

Since blackbear moved in, I think a new bar has been set for ice cost locally.  

I agree, but what ice costs and what organizations charge for season tuition are two different things. That was more what I was referring to with my comments.

22 minutes ago, HereForTheChirps said:

In a message to the SCIR members, it was clarified that the non-profit organization that currently runs SCIR will remain intact and will just have a new DBA. You hit the nail on the head, no other PAHL organizations at the rink to compete with.  That is the advantage.

 

Disclosure: I have a player at SCIR

 

I'm glad to hear they said things will remain intact for the SCIR teams. I'm hoping that things stay unchanged for the teams and your fees don't increase.

1 hour ago, forbin said:

https://www.scirhockey.org/february-news/
 

Weird, I couldn't find anywhere on their press release where it says SCIR is going from non-profit to for profit Vengeance.

So, 1 Logo, no other (PAHL) organizations to split ice time with, assuming increased fees. What are the positives of this move? I understand SCIR probably had to do it or they wouldn't have a place to play for their teams, but from the outside looking in, it looks like a dirty move by Vengeance to make more money with no upside for the teams forced to rebrand?

1 hour ago, HereForTheChirps said:

There are certainly good parent/coaches out there, some of which I would much rather have coaching my kid than some of these paid coaches with the side training expectation mentioned.  Some of these guys are in it for the wrong reasons.  Many of the parent/coaches have a great hockey background and are not in it for the money, just the love of the game and wanting to help their kid and his/her teammates with their knowledge.

The "parent coach" discussion always makes me laugh... don't get me wrong there are also parent coaches out there that know very little about the game and just are trying to help, but it's like someone that is good at hockey, knows how to coach, cares about the kids, has considerable hockey knowledge is all of a sudden null and void once they have a kid?! 

I get it, everyone is worried that kids will be treated "unfairly", "favored", etc. if a parent is behind the bench. If anything, I probably gave/give my kids less leniency when I coached them. I know that isn't always the case, but nothing ever is. So "parent coach", "non-parent coach", who gives a shit. Can the guy/girl coach and treat all the players accordingly? That's all that should matter.

2 hours ago, Jkersman01 said:

Quote

and started heckling him

 

Great games this season, both of the girls on the team are great players.  Best of luck with your future opportunities.

20 minutes ago, aaaahockey said:

I might need to see the livebarn on this one. Give us a date and time. 

I'm sure @Jkersman01 would love to get you that information to corroborate the validity of their claims.

9 minutes ago, forbin said:

10 year olds are not allowed to ref peewee games…..

I didn't check his birth certificate. 

A significantly smaller sized kid was trying to break up 3 larger sized kids beating on another kid. Better?