sample39

31 minutes ago, Goalsanddreams74 said:

This came down to it being a terrible schedule. And the league never listened to any of the players. We had concerns that nobody ever addressed. 

I can sympathize with you, I really can, but honestly what did all of you expect going into this?  You said nobody wanted to travel to play you.  That's because the make-up of the teams you were playing were adults with full time jobs and possibly young families.  Like most adult league teams.  Can you blame anyone for choosing (or needing) to stay home?  It's why 99.9% of beer league players only play at their local rink in a league that works with the personal and professional schedule.  

I think it's great that you guys all shared the same vision and wanted to make this work, but finding decent competition in a competent organized league was going to be damn near impossible.  I said this last year when this team was announced, but history tends to repeat itself.  See the MAHL in 2008.  Anyone who remembers that league probably saw this coming from a mile away. 

The owner and all of his personal business aside, the concept of the team and league were flawed from the start, and it's you guys -the players - that were let down.  

He's a fantastic player, but over 40% of his points came in games against the bottom 4 teams in D2.  Teams that would struggle to beat or even compete with good Tier 1 and Tier 2 JV teams.  

USA Hockey doesn't recognize 15U as a division under Tier 2, which is why you haven't seen a PAHL division for it yet.  

There are a couple of different approaches to this.  You can play up in AA as the minor birth year for the sake of greater competition but at the cost of winning.  I believe the Huskies did this last year.  Or you can play one year in Major Black and continue the build towards AA for the following season.  I believe the Hornets did this last year.  Both teams have similar records in 16AA this year.  So I would hesitate to say one route is better than the other.  It's more about what makes most sense for the team.  

This was brought up in an older post, but if I'm opening a new rink, the airport area is exactly where I'm putting it.  

6 hours ago, nemesis8679 said:

Reward teams for moving up, how? By moving them into a higher division when they graduate their best players and don't replace them? I wouldn't want that "reward", either. 

Better game times, more press coverage, etc.  There's likely no evidence that was EVER the case, but I was told that by someone who worked for PIHL a few years ago.  

And yes, not taking into account graduating classes from the year before is an issue (I've been there, believe me).  This is where school enrollment, program enrollment, and 5-10 year history should be taken into consideration like Rewster said above.  It would provide a good idea of how quickly a program can bounce back.  

The attitude of "there is no benefit of moving up, ever" though is why the classifications are sized the way they are currently. 

1 hour ago, Happy Hockey Fan said:

It isn’t geographic. Moon, Chartiers Valley and Avonworth are in a different section that Montour, West Allegheny and Quaker Valley when those districts actually border each other. The amount of travel added to all these teams is tremendous. And in my opinion absolutely stupid. Why divide teams that are natural rivalries? I think whoever was in charge of making the divisions did a real disservice to all those teams and their fans. 

I concur.  These 6 teams should be in the same section based on history and geography.  This is what happens though when you have an A division with 24 teams.  More than double the size of AAA and AA.  

I believe one of the initial goals of the "3 Year Formula" before it was abandoned was to promote and reward teams for moving up a classification.  What instead has happened are teams are fighting to get moved down, or refusing to get moved up. Hence the logjam we now have in A. 

Realignment at this point is necessary, whether programs like it or not. 

17 minutes ago, Happy Hockey Fan said:

Meadeville and Montour battled in a shootout (9-7) last night. Both teams have potent offenses. Both should be contenders. But I think Shaler has to be the favorite after beating teams in higher classifications in the St. M tournament. 

I know you're a Montour guy and I appreciate the optimism, but man, Montour might need to score 10 goals a game if they want to contend for anything this season. 

History has a funny way of repeating itself.  Do your homework on the Mid-Atlantic Hockey League (MAHL) in 2007-2008.  If this new league actually gets off the ground, I would expect a similar demise. 

I am pretty sure the "front desk" at Rostraver is the pub. 

1 hour ago, Stanley PK said:

Just an FYI, talking to a friend that has a player on the 16u AA team, these may be for second teams for some of the ages.

His team is full and not looking for any other players.

That 07 squad was THE ONLY Huskies team before the takeover, so it's not surprising that team specifically is full.  The question is all of the other age levels.  

25 minutes ago, Icebucket said:

I was told they had around 50 kids at tryouts. Did they not field a single team, or did they just fold the second one due to declines?

They did not field a single team.  I've heard conflicting stories as to why.  First being they cut most of their players for "AAA" players, and those "AAA" players bailed after accepting their placements for a different team.  I have also heard they cut better players to accommodate their returning players, and that's why those "AAA" players left.  The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. 

It's been amusing to watch how absolutely absurd this 18U tryout season has been.  I have never seen it this bad.  That's a good coaching staff at the Rebellion that now inexplicably doesn't have a team to coach.  

2 hours ago, Carl Racki said:

Agree, that is the problem.  I have seen it with the 2005,2006,2007,...   People want to stay at organizations but once everyone starts to leave you pretty much have to leave as well or you will be left with a really bad team and leave the next year anyway.  What I don't understand is why successful teams like the 2006 or 2007 SHAHA teams just disappear after great and decent runs.  Seems like once you hit Bantam and especially once you hit midget it becomes a mess.  No stability in most organizations especially the wanna be AAA ones.  Sometimes they field teams, sometimes they don't. If you stay you may be stuck holding the bag.  2009 Esmark kids are a great example of that this year.

The top guys move on while some guys decide to play AA and/or HS instead.  It happens, it's nothing out of the ordinary, and it shouldn't diminish the good runs those team's had.

25 minutes ago, theyrekids said:

I guess if that is your standard for a coach, not winning, then sure it's not a terrible thing.  Just feel bad for the kids who went their entire HS career without a winning season.  No dog in the fight, our HS has a winning tradition.  Just found it odd that parents would fight to keep a losing tradition. Plum is a fairly big district that had a history of success in the past. 

"No dog in the fight", but you felt compelled to create a post on this forum... okay.

I coached against Plum, and I recall them having a pretty good team in the 19-20 season in Class AA.  I don't remember what their record was, but I think they made the playoffs.  

Varsity teams from small to mid sized programs will always have their peaks and valleys.  If you are lucky, you get a few strong classes and you can compete for a few years.  Sometimes that's not the case, and all you can do is maximize whatever the potential is for your team.  If that potential is only a handful of wins, or hell - even no wins - then you still give your players, the team and the program everything you have.  If this coach is doing that, then kudos to him, and he should stay put and Plum should be thankful he remains committed to them.

6 minutes ago, PeterThePuck said:

Heard The Montour parents were lined up at Ice Castle before the hearing dressed up in their black and gold trying to intimidate the PIHL Judges.

This was a directive from their board, I believe. 

1 hour ago, Spear and Magic Helmet said:

I might be remembering this wrong, but didn't a few of the Hawthorne-coached BCAHA/Beaver Badgers teams have PAHL banners displayed in the bigger rink at Airport?

Like I said, my memory was foggy, and I don't think I made this clear, but I was under the impression that some Beaver Badgers teams were using Airport a lot, not just as an occasional spillover. Maybe it was just a few years, but I do think those years overlap with the time period you cited. Maybe it was only Hawthorne teams, and once his kids aged out, they stopped doing it.
 

It's absolutely possible, I just don't have a clear recollection of those team's playing home games or having banners hanging on the Landside rink.  

Those banners do exist though.  I believe they are hanging up at Brady's Run in all their wrinkled glory.  

The Airport Ice Arena was my home ice from 1995-2002.  I worked there from 2000-2002.  I can't tell you how many hours I spent in that place as a hockey player, employee and customer.  At no point do I recall there being a "new program" they called the "Badgers".  I know who you are referring to as the "disgruntled Beaver Co parent", and I don't recall him putting anything like that together during my time working there. 

Did the Beaver Badgers practice there occasionally?  Yes.  But that rink's amateur program during those years was the Arctic Foxes, until they relocated to the Island.  The Aviators program began shortly after. 

On 10/5/2022 at 10:32 AM, LGP13 said:

I'm sure the kid that makes plays east to west and opens room for his teammates would love to play on a team that just dumps and chases because their 95 year old coach did that when he played and there is no other way to play the game.

This comment made me laugh.  I bet that 95 year old coach has won a lot of games playing a defense-first system, including big games, and especially against teams who love the east-west skill game.  Believe me, that approach will open up more ice for your skilled players, and usually in high-percentage scoring areas. 

I agree with you though.  Having options is a great thing, and finding the right fit for your player is essential to their development.  You shouldn't be forced to stay in a situation if you are unhappy. 

1 hour ago, BeaverFalls said:

I’ve seen this. I’ve seen 3 players to a queen size bed and one $5 hot and ready per 4 players all first hand. 
 

If done right, it’s feasible. And hopefully they do it right. If not, it’s truly exhausting and demoralizing. 

You just described nearly every road trip I took while playing in college. 

You could argue the Airport Ice Arena had one of the better locations for a rink.  In it's heyday (95-05) that rink was bustling and served a lot of programs well.  Unfortunately, it was then run into the ground, and a lot of those programs have not fully recovered, and some don't exist anymore. 

If I am building a new rink, I am putting it in that area. 

I really hope this post gains some traction.  There are far more good guys in our sport than bad, even though the bad gets discussed here far more often.  I grew up playing in this area and have coached for the last 13 years.  There are so many good and influential people I've met along the way.  Ranging from coaches I've played for, coaches I've coached with and against, business managers and other volunteers that sink countless hours and go the extra mile. 

He was already mentioned earlier, but Howard Smith deserves much praise for his contributions to the sport over the last 20 years.  A great coach but an even better man. 

Mt. Lebo is in the process of having LiveBarn installed.  

13 minutes ago, Loach said:

My view on checking has changed. I used to have the same view mentioned above that checking should be brought back to Peewee but I've been swayed by the data more recently.

Before I get labelled a softie, I'll give some background.  When I played, body-checking was legal at the peewee age which was ages 12 and 13 back then. I grew up in a small Northern Ontario town, playing on a peewee travel team when I was 12 that played local games (i.e. when not traveling to tourneys) in the bantam house league - which meant I was playing in a body checking league against 15 year olds when I was 12.  My oldest son is now a senior in high school, but played regular shifts on his varsity team as a freshmen, meaning he was going up against players 3 or 4 years older than him then. My youngest is an 05 who just completed his first year of checking without issue.

The point of giving my background is that my stance didn't change due to some fear of my kids reaching body checking age or that I was scared of the unknown as a parent who hasn't played the game before. I learned body checking at a young age (I played competitively at decently high levels through junior hockey until age 21) and both my kids have gone through it.

But, I'm a scientist for my day job and I've recently looked at some of the big studies that have reported how injuries have decreased in peewee hockey players once body contact was removed from that level. Some of these studies have very large datasets and it's pretty convincing. It took awhile to reconcile the data with my own initial thoughts that 'I know how hockey should be played and body checking is vital'.  I won't post the studies here, but you can go to Pubmed website and search body checking youth hockey and bunch will pop up.  Carolyn Emery is an author on a few of the big ones.

So, I'm no longer for bringing body checking back to peewee.  I'm also coming around to getting it out of the lower level leagues. The reality is that the vast majority of youth hockey players are not going to play D1 or high levels of junior hockey, never mind professional hockey beyond that.  They are headed to playing in non-contact beer league hockey and will hopefully get a lot of enjoyment from the game with decades of recreational play.  I see the merit in getting it out of most youth leagues, but body checking would remain in certain leagues for more elite players that are keeping the avenue open for making a career out of it (AAA or high level AA in youth hockey at bantam and above, D1/juniors, professional). There's some issues in how to implement this policy (i.e. how does a kid who isn't playing in a body checking league make the transition to a more elite league if they are a late bloomer), but the data indicates it's the right thing to figure out.

Loach, this is great insight, thank you for sharing!

Eddie, I think removing body checking at 12U has amplified the parent paranoia, and in some areas hindered the kids development.  I understand the thought process behind removing it 8 or so years ago, but respectfully disagree with it.  It's better for players to learn and acclimate themselves to body-checking at a younger age, where both first and second year players are still relatively small.  At bantam, the size discrepancy is much larger.  You can have a first year player at 4'11 and 85lbs go up against a second year player who is 5'10 and 160lbs.  That's the nature of bantam hockey.  When you factor in the first year player having no experience with checking, specifically lacking good habits to properly protect themselves, then things can get dangerous.  They should consider reintroducing body-checking back into 12U, however, I fear they're more likely to remove it from 14U.  

USA Hockey is the main governing body that oversees hockey across the country.  Under USA Hockey, you have different Districts/Affiliates such as Atlantic, Central, and in our case - Mid-American (MidAm).  Under the Districts, you have leagues that fall within their supervised areas, such as the PIHL and PAHL in our area.  Individual leagues have their own rules, but also must adhere to rules set by their district, as well as the standard USA Hockey rules.

I did the Penn State camp when I was your son's age for 3 consecutive years.  It was excellent.  Assuming the curriculum is somewhat similar to what it was in the late 90s, but with the updated facilities/amenities, it's probably even better now.   Other comparable options are Kent State and Miami (OH).