Jkersman01

I think you might be ignoring the numerator of the simple math equation, which was the heart of my question. Assume a volunteer/working coach has his or her 2 hour evening to devote to coaching one team. That’s 2 hours per day /1 team or 2 hours per team. Compared to if you’re full time, spending 8 hours per day at the program. Assume 2 hours is program admin, and other 6 hours are for 2 teams. That’s 6 hours / 2 teams or 3 hours per team. To your other point- ‘Are we really at the point where we think Coaching 10U hockey should be expected to pay a "livable wage"?’ I’m not expecting it, especially in a broad scale. But at top tier AAA programs, that’s what is happening. This is a thread about PPE, and it is happening there. The full time coaches there definitely have a livable wage. I wouldn’t have even brought this up if you his were about 10u In house.

Why do you think that? Just curious. By coaching multiple teams and doing other work for the organization, you get the coaches closer to a liveable wage. Don’t you think having a coach that is a full time coach, coaching multiple teams, versus one coach per team balancing other things in life could provide to be a good thing in some situations? I’m talking in generalities of course.

Sounds like you might ‘be in the know’. It seems like a couple of the coaches listed on the pens site for the girls teams were changed. I certainly wouldn’t expect you, or anyone in the know, to elaborate on a message board like this but good, bad or indifferent, seems like something went down.

I'm curious, especially for some of you that have been around PAHL for a while- has there ever been talk of 'zoning' the PAHL teams whereby if an athlete lives within a certain zone, they are required to play for that team unless they obtain a waiver? I'm not advancing an opinion or agenda on this, just genuinely curious. I could see pros and cons with it. Frankly, I'm not sure club sports are allowed to do this. Maybe there are legal issues here.

I’m curious if anyone has ever done a book on PA high school hockey championships… and how many copies it had sold. Anyone know?

Congrats to SHAHA! Relative to the PPE side of this, I’m not pro or con PPE, but believe any company or association that fails at something should feel the pain of it. One might argue they’re failing at this 06 level notably. I don’t have the first hand knowledge to make that claim/ going by tone of this thread. It’s the only way companies like that, perhaps, look at themselves and make changes for the better of everyone. To realize one’s ways, while they might have very short term success, can have long term implications that come to roost. Or, they could just call it an outlier and ignore it….

I agree with the first part of your comment but don’t know about this part. They didn’t add any girls teams. They still filled out 2x teams at 10u and 12u (never had a problem filling the black teams here even if they have struggled, especially at 10u level), then 1 the rest of the way. Some 19u modifications were made, yes. But that greatly benefited the excel program; so that was self serving. Basically they added an extra off ice workout every week. No additional on ice, and charged a bit more. I think it really speaks to the first part of your comment as to the ‘investment’ made on girls hockey.

The Klasnick brothers. Dave who played at Denver and his brother Rob who played at St Cloud State. I’d be bothered if I didn’t also mention their father, Dave, who was on the USA hockey board for a while. What a great hockey family and great people.

Over the past 4-5 years, it seems to be that the opposite is happening on the girls side when compared to the boys side. (I'm not counting the 19U prep team, as that's how those teams pretty much work in any organization) There are quite a few Pittsburgh girls that played with PPE starting 10U/12U, but then moved away later in their youth hockey careers. I really don't want to drop names on a public forum since they are minors, but if you look at the US Jr. National Team, you'll get a flavor. You could also look at that 14U National Championship team they had a few years ago. That's a good example too. I agree PPE will likely take credit for anyone, boy or girl, that played for even just 1 year, that makes the next step. Frankly, I think almost any organization will/would do that though.

You don’t think what Kathy Pippy has done for girls hockey isn’t impactful? I’m not claiming the girls program as it is being run right now is perfect. Some people certainly have philosophical differences in that regard and I see both perspectives.

New poster. Had to jump in. Definitely have experience with a child in PPE and also one elsewhere. There are pros and cons, as with every team and organization. But isn’t 99% of youth hockey development about practice and coaching? Practicing with appropriate practice plan designed by a coach who knows how to develop kids? Practicing with peers who make you better? Getting instant and constant feedback by a good coach or coaching staff? Generally, PPE is reliable in providing this at the youth level we seem to be talking about quite a bit here. However, if you’re fortunate enough to have a great coach/parent/group of kids outside of PPE, you can get the same thing. Problem is, that’s very inconsistent. I think the bigger problem is parents setting unrealistic expectations for their 7 year old kid, and ruining it for both the parents and the kid. This is mostly noise. Do the kids really have an opinion on what we’re talking about? If they do, that’s our fault. Not any organization’s fault. Also, this discussion has been ignoring girls hockey. That’s fine, but what PPE, and some of the original influences in the girls side from Pittsburgh, has done for girls hockey is something we can be proud of.