Lifelongbender

2 minutes ago, Theroadtobeerleague said:

People that make 7 figures don’t live in 400k townhomes

Sure they do if their "real" home is a $10M mansion somewhere else, and the townhome is just where they're living during the season. You don't think that every single Penguins player has a home somewhere other than Pittsburgh? Lots of Penguins players have rented local homes from former players over the years. And what a shock - alot of those homes are in Mount Lebanon, right next to the rink they used to practice in frequently. That's why Kunitz, Dupuis, and Adams all had kids playing at Mount Lebanon when they played here. Because they lived in rented houses there. Despite the money they made.

Of course he could be making 6 or 7 figures and live in an inexpensive home near the rink. That's just silly.

8 hours ago, Theroadtobeerleague said:

If Mueller makes that much then why does he live in a townhouse in Cranberry? Also very easy to find online. 

I know a few very wealthy people who have apartments in one city and permanent homes elsewhere.

54 minutes ago, sadday4hockey said:

Losing 6-3 in the QF's is a success? For The Chosen team? With all those years of Excel Academy training? The best facility. The best coaching. All the other hoopla and kool-aid.

That's not a very high standard.

I figure making it to Nationals Quarterfinals is a success in and of itself. We all know how fashionable it is to hate PE, but that's still doing pretty well.

15 minutes ago, Jack Handey said:

This model is used in Minnesota for high school and the Chicago amateur league kind of works this way.  If you don't like your club, you get 1 free hop to another club then that's it.  There is no hopping from team to team each year like some west PA families do.  

This is one of those ideas that makes sense and doesn't. On the one hand, there are plenty of coaches who will tell you that moving around like that hurts development and makes planning very difficult, and it's hard for organizations to plan for teams for next season if they can't predict who will be where. On the other hand, there are plenty of parents who will say that they should be free to seek the best fit for their players.

It's my observation that, for the top players, team shopping seems to be at least occasionally effective, even if it is unappetizingly mercenary. For lower caliber players, however, it seems to never work out the way the parents want. It's hard to come into a new organization where nobody knows you and get a fair shake for A minor players.

Isn't this more or less the way little league works in most places in our area? For my part, I would tend to agree with such a rule.

10 hours ago, BeaverFalls said:

I think typically the hierarchy is PPE, then PAHL. Most programs i know go out of their way to adjust schedules so they don’t gave girls and co-ed the same dates and times. 

It does suck as a coach, but i think most of them at the rec team level are willing to take them for the 15 games they get them and not sweat the 5 they miss.

 

Yeah, this is pretty much entirely true. And that order of priority does make sense.

Girls are definitely allowed to roster on one PAHL coed team and one PAHL girls team. I know of players who play for a coed, a girls, and PPE.

3 hours ago, GrumpyOldPucker said:

Bender, that's just my opinion on where I would start to reform the tryout process....

As for parents.... most of the times that I was an evaluator they didn't close tryouts. When asked\approached by a parent I explained the process and referred them to the board - END of discussion - to me the players were just a number. Those few parents that I was close enough to that I would discuss their kids performace, it was not with respect to any other player.  They got my personal, NO BS, very hard and critical opinion of their kid. They knew the gloves were off and they didn't usually do this more than once 'cuz I didn't feed their ego or opinion that "Johnny should be on 'X' team". I made it a point to burst their bubble and gave them a very clear review of their kids flaws from an evaluator\coaches point of view. Some were put off and some thanked me for the no BS list of things to work on.

@GrumpyOldPucker, I get it. To be honest I'm not that concerned about the upper level teams because my kids are lifelong JV and A players. Beer league or bust! (just like all the "AAA" players, I suppose.) When I said you were speaking gospel I was referring specifically to having tryouts be closed to spectators. Although I have to say that I thought alot of that post was pretty smart.

I can tell you that I have evaluated in both closed and open tryouts and it is absolutely my opinion that kids play better when their parents aren't watching, and when a kid blows a tire once on the ice you don't worry about him or her getting screamed at all the way home afterwards. The toxicity of having (some) parents involved isn't limited only to the evaluators and the coaches (and, in game contexts, officials). It's my heartfelt belief that every player thinks they play better with an audience, but almost every player ACTUALLY plays better without one.

In the past when I have been approached by a parent after a tryout to talk about a kid's ratings I have simply refused to discuss it. I follow that rule for parents who are good friends and parents I don't know at all. It's just simpler. And like you said, I try my damndest to make my evaluations neutral - like you said, the kids are just a number - even though, like most people who watch closely, I can identify most of the players by their skating alone.

To be honest, parents seem happier once they accept that evaluations are closed, too. They hang out in the parking lot and just relax with other parents rather than get tense watching their player on the ice.

As a related aside, it has long been my opinion that organizations should try as hard as they can to find evaluators who don't know the players at all. I used to send a little white paper to my local organization every year proposing calling up the Head Coach at Cal U or Pitt and offering to send a bus for their kids and pay their players in pizza and a small amount of money to come out and evaluate. The resulting evaluations would be truly anonymous and also done by actual hockey people. (There are a number of potential objections to this idea, but the only one that really matters is that no organization will ever do that because it takes the influence out of the coaches' hands.) I've even mused at times that there might be money to be made in starting a company that runs tryouts and reviews players for organizations, except see the objection above. Nobody would ever hire that company, so it could never make money.

8 hours ago, GrumpyOldPucker said:

If the GrumpyOldPucker were king he would declare:

- All tryouts are closed to parents

Most of that stuff was about National Bound Teams tryouts and they way they interact with non-National Bound teams tryouts (i.e., the "higher" teams), but this is speaking gospel. Banning parents from tryouts is best for the players and the evaluators. Without a question, hard stop.

Parents shoudn't be permitted to observe tryouts at any organization at any level.

16 hours ago, forbin said:

PPE is a white collar clique. Predetermined rosters based on parental income and butt kissing, but then again that's pretty much everywhere nowadays. 

It's so funny to me to see what Cranberry has become. It was a whole different world growing up there in the late 80's. I avoid it like the plague now. 

I remember when everyone called that region "Mars" because that was the name of the exit you got off at to drive up RT19 to the turnpike. Basically farms there then.

11 hours ago, aaaahockey said:

I agree with most of what is posted here.  14+ pens elite us gonna be tough to just walk on I would guess but largely because they start pulling regionally (if not nationally).  I think at the younger ages there can be some back and forth. 

If not internationally.

7 hours ago, GrumpyOldPucker said:

Me thinks that - as usual - we do not have all of the facts to intelligently discuss this one.... But why let that stop anyone..... someone pass me another beer and some popcorn! ??? 

Well said! If I had a quarter for every time I've thought this on this discussion board, well, I'd buy that beer for you, anyway.

5 hours ago, GrumpyOldPucker said:

Mentioned that the players used to half ice practices had no full ice end to end speed, no explosiveness out of the D zone because ever breakout drill stopped at the red line, and again no clue what to do with the puck from the top of the D zone circle to the top of the O zone circle except skate straight ahead with it. If they didn't have the puck they usually would usually coast through the neutral zone or pace the puck carrier waiting for a lateral tape to tape pass instead of carrying the speed through the zone and passing forward to the open areas. 

I have not watched ADM or Squirts in a couple years. The trend that I remember once x-ice ADM became gospel was that we now had kids that could stick handle in a phone standing still in a crowd or maybe along the boards but the same kids that would take the puck coast to coast when it was full ice still went end to end.... You still had players with playmaker mindsets that recognized who they should get the puck to and defensive mindsets who would be natural stay at home Defensemen . So what was the net gain here? Has it changed any in the last few years?

 

This is still more or less prevalent in players, in my experience. While there is much to like about the ADM in terms of skills development, the things you need full ice to practice suffer under it. Like @GrumpyOldPucker, I've noticed that breakouts especially have suffered, not just in terms of creativity as discussed above but also in terms of simple execution. It's a consequence of not being able to really get rolling out of the zone because your ice ends at the red line. Especially for the kids playing for the teams without those extra As - for many of those teams you get breakouts only in the form of one player carrying the puck and the other forwards following along. Nobody to pass to and nobody crashing the net for rebounds.

Of course, most organizations wouldn't have enough ice to give full ice to their teams very often even under the old model.

8 hours ago, Denis Lemiuex said:

It's not the ADM model. Actually I was against it at first but it have come all the way around. I saw way too many full ice games played by 10U guys, Complete waste of time and energy. One kid would skate around the others and hopefully his/her teammates knew enough to get on sides. Kids are having fun and they have pucks on sticks. And nothing other than introducing them to the game and letting them have fun before the U12 level is going to improve their chances of a post HS career.

The biggest issue to me is kids at the youngest age are being taught by people who don't "know" the game. The USA modules are at best less than adequate. The principles of time and space and puck support is rarely mentioned and doesn't show how to teach those things.  Go to U14  and even U16 AA games and see how many times a team actually has any sustained offensive zone play.  Even man breaks are just one on one play. Cycling happens but the no idea what to do. And on and on. They get these bad habits and are never corrected because they are winning games. In hockey areas the first coaches of kids as well as their parents played at high levels and know the game as compared to our guys who are dads pulled out of the stands, watched 20 modules not understanding what they mean or are missing, and attend a coaching clinic or two. (Side note. Went for my level 4 and sat next to an assistant coach from the Chicago Steel U-16 team). One subject was practice planning, He whispered to me that he has 6 ex players playing D1 and and will have 2 or 3 more in a couple of years. He knows how to plan a practice or better have known to coach at his level). That's what USA Clinics waste time on.

Second is the game to practice ratio. Pros have a 3-1 game to practice ratio if you factor in game day skates. U14s - U12s are playing 40 - 50 games. Are you telling me they are on the ice 120 times for practices. Or don't U14s and below need as much practice as the pros? And the off ice stuff doesn't cut and is a joke. One HS team I know had 2 sessions a week over summer but didn't provide a plan for the other 4 days (one rest day). So what they were doing was a waste of time but it made the parents happy.

Which gets me to point 3. Parents really have no clue what they should be paying for. Too many BS artists or people who think they know. Organizations preach player development. Maybe if they really believe it they would guarantee a spot for two years unless the player/family has a discipline problem. If they are so good at development no need to bring in other players or have tryouts. Practice ratios. Real off ice training. Etc.

That's just a start.

 

Wow. This is a ton of wisdom in one post. I don't see much to disagree with here.

12 minutes ago, aaaahockey said:

I'm not sure I understand this comment but maybe I'm missing something. You just use your half of the ice and set up two nets cross ice (mite style) and let the kids play a short 10 minute game at the end of practice. 

Yeah, I have to agree with @aaaahockey. Virtually every team I know does something like this at the end of at least some of their practices.

I agree with @Saucey on this subject. PAHL does a pretty good job of placing teams, which is a complex process and must be a maddeningly enormous undertaking. As several other posters have stated here, it's not perfect, and coaching of the teams and practice time become huge factors as the season progresses. There are organizations notorious for sandbagging during placements, and to be sure some placements are obviously wrong every season. It's hard to see how it could be perfect, especially this season where placement games were reduced (and totally eliminated at some levels, where the PAHL database is more complete for the players due to their experience).

It's more challenging at Squirts especially, since those players don't have much historical data in the PAHL database, and at that age players can improve dramatically based on talent, ice time, and coaching. Sometimes just a month's worth of practicing can take what looked to be a B team all the way to A major at that level, because the kids can learn so quickly.

1 hour ago, dazedandconfused said:

Sorry, here's a clarification. The way those are listed and defined are on the ability to qualify for transfer admission to each school from The Rock.

@dazedandconfused, I feel like a jerk. If that's what you meant, I generally agree with your assessment. I jumped to a conclusion, and I hereby withdraw my reaction.

Sorry about that.

46 minutes ago, dazedandconfused said:

Transferring to?

IUP - okay

RMU - maybe

JCU - probably not

Pitt - no way

Maybe a college education should be chosen on merit and not the ACHA hockey team.

Come on, all of those schools are, academically speaking, at least on par with Slippery Rock. And right now they all have hockey, so they're from a hockey standpoint superior.

The only one of the group I would even consider going to from an academic standpoint is Pitt, but then I am an engineer. Your definition of merit and mine definitely don't align.

@BeaverFalls, there's no question that you're right there. But I don't think that's the intention of this idea. It seems like they're just trying to give the girls a showcase.

15 hours ago, BeaverFalls said:

Let’s not fool each other. A girls PIHL division is an afterthought at best. 

Well, yes. I believe the idea is to generate excitement for girls hockey, as far as possible, and give the girls a little exposure while having fun doing it. There's nothing wrong with that.

Nobody is fooling themselves here. Hell, boys HS hockey isn't being crowded with scouts here, so it's hard to see how the girls program is anything but a fun idea for the girls.

For my part I support it, even though my daughter is only Middle School age. Too many people in this region don't take girls' hockey seriously, including a good number of folks on this board.

1 hour ago, dropthepuck said:

I wasn't directing it toward your post just the direction this thread has gone. Bottom line:

TRIPLE A HOCKEY IS EXPENSIVE!!!!

Finally a post that everyon here can agree upon!!!!

Well done, @dropthepuck!!!

16 hours ago, Wes said:

I would love to see a girls division, but how are high schools going to find 10+ players per school in Western PA?

I can see JOINT teams forming to get enough numbers, but I can't see more than a VERY small # of schools having a goalie + 8-9 skaters.

 

@Wes Exactly the second paragraph. The intent was a joint teams set up. Players were going to wear a regional jersey, and as I remember their HS logo would be added to their regional team jersey.

It's a good idea. I'm all for it.

I honestly don't understand who the hell cares about whether any particular team s top 10, top 5, #1. If you're top 25 you're probably the best team in the Pittsburgh region.

This conversation is nothing more than a bunch of alleged grownups bragging at each other. The Vengeance are obviously a very very good team. Hell, they could probably beat the Penguins.

Grow up, the lot of you. None of you are even ON the team yourself.

9 hours ago, Quinlan2020a said:

Not gonna happen.

https://www.pihlhockey.com/page/show/6152746-pihl-girls-team-information?fbclid=IwAR1Jp0pR7gvB3nOJPA7omDbMnVnVOzmtUwzbrWZzbhTdYPFdYMZ6gXFXqs8

 

I probably could have just looked for that myself. Thanks for the link.

@GrumpyOldPucker That certainly wasn't the intent of the exercise. They just wanted to run a little mini season - really more of a showcase - where regionally-based teams made up of girls from several different schools would be formed and would play in an all-girls format. 

I hear you about the stuff the boys do on the ice, though. Shouldn't be tolerated by coaches, but it's out there anyway. I don't think parents have any idea how boorish boys are out there from time to time.

Has anyone heard if PIHL intends to try to have the girls' hockey event that they wanted to run last year, but ended up having to cancel due to COVID?

Honestly I thought that it was a good idea, and it would have been fun for the girls and fun to watch.