Spear and Magic Helmet

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100091950467063

I'm a little surprised no one mentioned this yet. https://triblive.com/sports/level-greens-brandon-svoboda-drafted-in-third-round-by-sharks/

Wasn't the problem with WPHOA that it was a good ole boy network? I was under the impression it had many of the same issues, taking a while to pay the officials, not scheduling appropriately, etc.? Might just be that it's too hard to run an organization that big and we might be better off just having local schedulers everywhere.

Waaaay back in the dark ages, it was much more typical for every rink in the area to have no ice for a month or so in the summer. It used to be that summer was highest cost and lowest revenue. Kids used to play baseball, lacrosse, etc. instead of hockey in the summer as well. With all of the spring/summer teams, camps, etc. these days, it may not be as low revenue as it once was.

I've been out of this for a long time, but it seems to me that the faux AAA stuff is also partially in response to there being 6-8 levels of A hockey. I hear "lowly A" a lot, obviously people think their kids are not A level players. I get that you don't want 20-0 blowouts in A, but when you have 6-8 divisions in A, you are probably trying to slice it too thin. I get why they don't have B at older age groups anymore, they think kids will quit instead of playing B. The whole birthyear idea has significantly complicated it too. A long time ago that birthyear idea was only for the high level teams, so I get it. Your team is "better" if it is a birthyear team. But I think a part of the problem is the vast majority of the teams are forced into some flavor of A level hockey. The best A level teams in a lot of cases really are good enough to be AA teams, but because PAHL has to fill up every on of the 6-8 A level brackets, they have to play "lowly A". Then everyone gets angry and creates hybrid and faux teams and makes it worse. Personally, I think there should not be any birthyear teams permitted at the A level. You should just let more teams into AA, which I know is the opposite of what people here think. If you want to be a birth year team, then you automatically are in AA. I don't care if they deserve to be AA or not. It simplifies the process a little, because you know if you make a birthyear team, you are playing AA. Besides, the birthyear thing is generally a sign that the team is considered more serious, which is another complaint around here. I get that too. If you are more serious about hockey, you want to be on a team of like-minded people. I realize this would mean some bad AA teams will be out there. If they get destroyed every weekend, fine. That's what they asked for. Someone has to be the worst team in every division. Way back on the "old days", i.e. 90s and 00s (the years, not the birthyears of the kids), B was inexperienced players. A was less serious but better than house level and they played PAHL schedules and 2-4 tournaments a year. AA was where all of the serious players went and they played a lot more games than A. Of course, yes, there was AAA too, some of which was legit, and some was not so much. On a side note, it is funny to me that the Pittsburgh Stars, now known as Esmark, were originally a "faux" AAA team started by a doctor who found a group of players angry at the Amateur Penguins. The Am Pens are now the Vengeance and probably now they are the "faux" AAA team of those two.

I did not go to IUP, but I had thought of it as a solid option in the state system. In my head, it was relatively inexpensive, a decent campus and town, somewhat safe, and a better school with better resources than the other state schools in the area (Cal, Clarion, SRU, Edinboro, etc.). Granted, I don't talk to anyone young much anymore, but people I know who went to IUP have never really been excessively negative about it, and a lot of them did say the school was fun. Very disappointed to read this. Certainly I wasn't expecting zero crime and a top tier academic ranking, but this definitely is well below my expectations.

They haven't had a team for 5 years or so. I believe they stopped registering in the ACHA around 2013 or so due to instability, but they did continue along in a lower division within CHE for 4-5 years. The height of that program was probably in the mid-2000s, but once that group graduated, there wasn't really anyone to keep things going.

Who was the coach of that team? Was that Taibi's team?

Do any public schools play in AAA these days?

Split season hockey won't work until a lot of other stuff is fixed, unless high school hockey takes the summer for their part of the split season. The two biggest reasons are the high school season is way, way too long and most schools in the area don't have high school hockey. You can't have 6 months of the year, August to April, where there is no Amateur hockey for 16u and 18u (and maybe even 14u). Years ago, in Buffalo they tried to go to a split season, and that's in a place where there were lots of fully-funded high school teams. The reaction was the rise of about elevendy billion junior teams, which did not have to adhere to the split season schedule. Build a better mouse trap, I guess.

Big problem is you're going to create problems with anyone playing amateur hockey. No reason you can't do a "game of the week" on a Thursday though.

This is a long time ago that I read about this, but the ADM model originally wasn't just supposed to be mites. Squirts was supposed to be half-ice and there were similar guidelines for squirts. That stuff just never got implemented in this area. USA Hockey probably does have a transition to full ice program somewhere in that ADM model, but if you just throw out ADM after mites, then you never use it. https://www.minnesotahockey.org/news_article/show/1060586

https://tribhssn.triblive.com/piaa-may-strengthen-competitive-balance-rule-by-including-all-team-sports-removing-transfers/ Looks like just basketball and football right now. I could see baseball getting added down the road. With the amount of travel baseball, baseball camps, and baseball private training, it feels like it's going the way hockey is going in terms of expense. Maybe soccer and lacrosse too. The real argument for a competitive balance rule in hockey is Connellsville in the 1990s. Because of the size of the school, they played in AAA in the 90s. They regularly lost games 15-0 and even their "close" games were 8-2 losses. Really not a good result for either team.

https://tribhssn.triblive.com/aliquippa-wins-piaa-appeal-remains-in-class-4a-football/ PIAA does not go strictly on enrollment either. Size of the school is certainly a factor, but for hockey, it is far from the most important factor. Things like where the rinks are relative to the school and relative wealth in the district strike me as two big factors right away. Size is a factor when other things are equal for sure. And it does seem crazy to me that McDowell is in A. But on the other hand, Ringgold, if they could put a pure team together, would probably be OK to be in A. The idea that high school programs "develop" players is kind of misleading too. I would probably credit the local amateur organizations for that more than anything. Mon Valley hasn't seen great numbers in their ADM programs, so the high schools who play there have been weak or even gone out of existence. You could say the opposite about schools whose kids would start their hockey careers in ADM programs at Baierl or RMU.

Amazing that they don't mention a goaltender...12 skaters + 0 goalies = no team.

I don't know how they would count this year, but I would be kind of surprised if the court case continues. I think the point was just to get the injunction, and when that failed, I think interest fizzled. If the PIHL has additional discipline beyond what has already been doled out, then maybe they would pursue it in court, but otherwise I think the court case is more or less dead.

Honestly, yes, I would. Anything that could come back to bite me, I would have. Part of this is probably because I'm old and cynical, but I would have assumed that people would have questioned this kid's eligibility from the get-go. Just knowing how a lot of people are, I would have done the CYA.

If you are interested, you can find the court info by creating an account here and searching for the case. It's public record. I attached the whole thing if you care to read it. https://dcr.alleghenycounty.us All it takes to sue someone is a filing fee. That doesn't mean you're right or wrong or say anything about relative strength of the case. That said, the basis of the suit appears to be that: A) The commissioner said the goalie was good to go, and his word is stronger than that of the Rules Interpreter. B) The goalie never went to another high school, so the transfer rules do not apply to him. C) Even if the goalie is now "ineligible", he was not ineligible at the time he played, and he has not played since the hearing, so those 10 games should still count. D) The PIHL cannot change their mind. If the goalie was declared eligible, the PIHL cannot suddenly rule differently on the same set of facts. The thing that is missing in the evidence submitted is any proof of A - there is no specific mention of the goalie being eligible. It may have been a spoken conversation, I don't know. But that I think is going to hurt their case. Keep in mind I am not an attorney, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express. montourcase.pdf

I think you do have a good point that Montour would have probably missed the playoffs anyhow, but I think it would sting less had the PIHL ruled the goalie ineligible earlier. It probably hurts a little more being right there for the playoffs and having it taken away, even thought it was the right decision to rule the goalie and rule the games a forfeit/boot Montour from the playoffs. I do think that Montour didn't do enough to make sure the kid was eligible and the kid shouldn't have played until they were sure it was ok (or found out it was not). However, I also think the PIHL should have been a little more on top of the situation. People would have been mad in November too, but I think things overall would have been a little smoother.

I don't think they will. It's not really a good look for anyone here. Best to just move on.

I predict Montour will not win a playoff game, because it looks like they have been removed from the bracket.

At the end of the day, that's pretty much it. The AD/school district couldn't care less about the Montour hockey club, until something like this happens and threatens to bring negative publicity to the school district. Then they do care, but not in a good way.

Might have to update the rankings based on pending litigation.

I guess that's how people interpret Danner, but to be honest, I think he's a good counterpoint to a lot of the non-sense that goes on around here. Even Danner will admit that there are some kids from this area that are moving on to legit, higher level hockey. I have also seen that there are a lot of people taking advantage of people's naivety. I know people who still think their kid is going to get a scholarship (not just walk on) at Boston College/Boston University despite the fact that they are playing pay-to-play Jr A, because that's what their (paid) advisor is telling them. I do see the other point too, let people spent their money how they want, but it gets annoying when people say their kid's gonna play NCAA hockey when he's 19 and nowhere close to the level that those players are. I think that's what makes us a bit jaded.

Not to further a stereotype, but he grew up in Canada and played hockey as a kid. Not sure if he was ever good enough to play AAA or even faux AAA, but I don't think he's running on the ice with kicker's cleats.