Lifelongbender

Going to be a long spring...

The looming question is this: what effect, if any, will COV19 and the related travel and assembly advisories and bans have on organizational tryouts, many of which are scheduled in the next 6-8 weeks?

I think this is going to blow over before my kids have tryouts, but how the heck can we know? And how can we predict the effects of fear on attendance?

17 minutes ago, dazedandconfused said:

This is probably the most difficult thing to determine. Not necessarily at the PAHL A levels and lower but at the AAA, High AA PAHL and independent team levels. Travel costs, tournament fees, coach travel expenses and other "unknown fees" vary greatly. You practically need to be a CPA and have a reliable person at each organization to get an accurate measure.

Right. Exactly right. The teams that get talked about most on here - the travel teams and "AAA" teams - are vastly more expensive to play on than just the organizational fees. I think there are lots of parents who aren't entirely clear that this is true, or just by how much it is true.

5 minutes ago, Eddie Shore said:

WOW! Can't speak for the individual DM, but the Pens?  Good for local youth hockey?  You lost me there.  That organization has destroyed the Pittsburgh area, not helped it (they are the reason we have such an issue at the AAA level, and why our AA teams can't compete anymore).  You really don't get out much do you?  I would suggest looking at what other pro teams have done for their communities to build the sport and get back to me on this.  Sorry to say I am going to have to side with everyone else on this one.  Your statements are ridiculous. 

All of this doesn't even touch on the disastrous effects Pens Elite hockey has had on girls' hockey in the region.

2 hours ago, Eddie Shore said:

Pitt does have a D1 team already. An ACHA D1 Team.  Do you mean and NCAA Team?  Really?  They just folded their D2 Team half way through the year based on not enough players and $$ and the D1 is a good team on the ice in CHMA, but is not considered "threat" at Nationals.  The amount of players they had at tryouts this year is half of what it used to be.  Plus they are always getting their hands slapped by the University (see uniform color and "Cathedral" jerseys.  I will bookmark your post and we can revisit it in 10 years for my "I told you so". 

I hope I am wrong, but I am sorry to say, it ain't gonna happen.

It's hard to imagine happening. Right now they're driving to Harmarville for practices and games, aren't they? Can't see how they'll develop NCAA D1 class talent with having to travel that far for daily practices. The rinks that true D1 school have on campus are too good in terms of not just ice but amenities for the players. There's nothing like that there, nor will there EVER be anything like that in Oakland, or at the Armory, if that ever happens. D1 players have recreation and study rooms, training tables, film and classroom facilities, weight rooms, and trainer facilities at their fingertips.

Nobody truly good enough to play Varsity D1 will be attracted to whatever facility Pitt can offer in anything like the foreseeable future when they can play at Pegula, or Compton at Notre Dame, or the facilities offered by BU. It's just economics.

5 minutes ago, Lifelongbender said:

I read elsewhere that PennDOT had committed a considerable amount of money to upgrade some roads in the area. I am still skeptical of whether the road system in the area can handle the volume, but that's been said. I'll try to find that article and post it.

I still think that the local residents will be VERY unhappy once this project is complete. For my part, though, I'd love to finish a beer league game and hit Noodlehead's for dinner.

Here's the article:

https://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/news/2019/11/18/state-to-fund-500k-rebuilding-of-street-outside.html

I work in highway construction. This is a totally insignificant amount of money for a roadway project. My memory must've been rattled by that puck...

I read elsewhere that PennDOT had committed a considerable amount of money to upgrade some roads in the area. I am still skeptical of whether the road system in the area can handle the volume, but that's been said. I'll try to find that article and post it.

I still think that the local residents will be VERY unhappy once this project is complete. For my part, though, I'd love to finish a beer league game and hit Noodlehead's for dinner.

One struggles mightily to understand how a discussion about the merits of installing an ice rink - 1) in the City of Pittsburgh and 2) at the Hunt Armory specifically -could devolve into an argument about the relative intelligence or manliness of the forum participants. It's hard to get any value out of the any of the more serious discussions here with this sort of reduction to the absurd going on. This was actually one of the more healthy discussions on the forum until about ten messages ago. Put them away, boys.

And, as someone said elsewhere, stop feeding the animals.

21 minutes ago, fafa fohi said:

It has nothing to do with WPA being a “fake hockey town.”  That is an absurd comment to make.  Look at the factors Pitt and RMU are up against.  

No rink on campus - students can’t walk from their dorm to the games.  Why do you think attendance at Miami, OU and Kent State are higher?  Hell, OU sells out almost every home game and had a waiting list to get tickets for when they swept PItt two weekends ago.  So by your standard does that make Athens a hockey town?  

Why does Pitt have horrible attendance during football season?  Same thing - students have to take a freaking bus to the games.  Are you now going to say due to lack of support for Pitt football that this isn’t a football city?”  There are tons of colleges with far less enrollment and success in their program that get better fan support because the facility they play in is on campus. 

To follow up on this, a few years ago I tried to buy a block of tickets to Pegula Arena for a peewee team after a game we were playing out there, and I was told that the arena was sold out until 2027 or something absurd like that.

20 hours ago, sadday4hockey said:

You're both clueless. Both of those rules force Coaches to teach their players how to make a play WITH THE PUCK on their stick instead of teaching them how to get rid of the puck for absolutely no reason. And by the way, what the hell do either of those posts have to do with this thread? SMFH

There was a reasoned discussion (and I know how unlikely that sounds) on the topic of icing on the PK on the board last January (2019). You can find that discussion by looking for a thread called "PAHL Rule Question".

I'm sorry, though. I just don't see how eliminating the delayed offsides makes anything better for the players, or gives them any more chances to "make a play WITH THE PUCK on their stick". I honestly don't get how that improves either the quality of the game or the learning experience for the player. It means that when a player fails to hold the blue line but quickly collects the puck, they have little choice but to skate back towards their own zone under pressure or cause an offsides if the D2D pass is well defended. That's just not how hockey is played, nor would that be an improvement for adults. There's an argument that eliminating free icing for the PK would be a good thing for the game. No such argument exists for eliminating delayed offsides.

7 minutes ago, HereWithPopcorn said:

2. It is absolutely taking Girls out of PAHL which will hurt the growth PAHL has been trying to accomplish in Girls divisions.  At 10U and 12U, girls could previously play on the Pens Elite, and then also dual roster for a PAHL Girls and co-ed team.  Now that the Pens are making it full time, these girls will have to decide which way to go from a girls team perspective.

This.

And this doesn't even mention the effect they have on costs for girls who hope to be able to play somewhat seriously, but who don't want to/can't play co-ed at U14.

13 minutes ago, forbin said:

No, I don't believe high school and Foxes games are played on the Stadium rink, but practices are held on it.

Ok, that makes sense. I know that I have played there in various adult league functions. It was hard to imagine a HS game on it.

19 hours ago, forbin said:

Not too mention it's being used for Foxes, as well as Montour/North Hills/Moon HS teams. That single outdoor ice surface probably generates the Island Sports Center about 2 million every season, and I am more than likely on the low side of that. Plus add on all the inline teams that use the other rink. Do you honestly think the RMU D1 team brings that kind of money (or would with more seating) to the facility? Eliminating those outdoor surfaces would be absolutely detrimental to RMU ISC business model and to Pittsburgh area youth hockey. There is no way they would allow that to happen. 

 

I am asking this question sincerely - are you saying that there are high school games played on the Stadium Rink at ISC? That's hard to believe for a number of reasons, by far the most significant of which is the fact that it isn't regulation sized. The neutral zone is so short that staying onside is a serious challenge in breakaways when you first start playing on it.

Plus when Pittsburgh doesn't really have a winter, like this year, the front corner ice is awful.

1 hour ago, HereWithPopcorn said:

Both Pens Elite Girls and the Selects have had a history of rostering girls at 10U and 12U that played A- or B level in PAHL.  Must really mess with a kid's head when they are elite in one realm and bottom of the barrel on their other team.

This is the edge of what I was referring to about how these organizations have damaged girls' hockey in the region. Well said.

17 hours ago, The King said:

What is it with all the focus on girls hockey in the region? Not saying it’s right or wrong but is the demand that great? I haven’t looked at WPA registration numbers but has the number of women’s players jumped that much to necessitate it? Good for them if it has but I bet a lot of this has to do with the culture. I’m sure the PPE focus is about the “celebrity” kids there but elsewhere I am willing to bet that it’s a way to make money and/or the SafeSport legislation is going to start making coed sports less desirable. Just my opinion  

Yes, there are a good number of female players in the Pittsburgh area, especially at the U12 and U10 ages. PAHL, the Penguins, and USAHockey are all pushing to expand girls hockey. Personally I think this is a good thing, but YMMV.

So here's the thing about the Pens Elite move. Virtually all the girls play co-ed hockey up through U12. Girls do tend to drop out more than boys do at all ages, but what happens at U14 is body checking. While I think it's a large minority, there are many girls who, either because of their own preference or the preference of their parents (and man, both are common), decide not to play co-ed hockey at the U14 (bantam) level and above due to body checking. Remember that body checking - as opposed to body contact - is not permitted in girls' or womens' hockey AT ANY LEVEL, INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL. A number of PAHL organizations are making efforts to develop more robust girls-only programs to give these girls a place to play if they choose to stop playing at U14. But in order to accomplish this in an effective way, it's important to have solid programs for the U10 and U12 levels as well. Some girls look forward to the competition and excitement of full-on body checking hockey (although the truth is that introducing delayed offsides makes a bigger difference than body checking at the bantam level - for the love of Pete why not introduce delayed offsides earlier?), but at least a large minority do not want to play against boys in full-on body checking.

Now the Pens Elite are offering full-time teams for girls at all ages. They have the resources, like ice time and coaching staff, and the roster of players, to do so. Most PAHL organizations are not going to be able to field full-time girls' teams at levels below U14 because their girls are playing and want to play co-ed at this age level, and even at the U14 level there are plenty of girls who continue to play co-ed, which makes offering a full-time team even at that level tenuous for most organizations. But the Pens can do it, and for the reasons above it's in their perceived interests to do so.

Regarding the statements @The King made about SafeSport, there's probably some truth to this. There are few rinks in the area that are equipped to handle more than two or three girls in a girls' locker room at a time. Any U14 or above game that features just one girl on each of the two teams is going to have trouble finding separate facilities for their female players to get ready in, because most of our local rinks have girls' locker rooms so small that two bantam or midget-aged players can't get dressed in them together. This is certainly true of all of the former Bladerunners facilities. This situation does come up, by the way.

Obviously there is a huge difference between a Pens Elite-type program and the typical PAHL organization program, but these underlying justifications for these moves are still largely the same.

Regarding money as a motive for this, I don't see it, though I am certain that there are going to be a number of responses that use a bunch of dollar signs to make that allegation. For a host of reasons, it would be a much less risky way to make money at the U14 level to offer more teams for male players. It strikes me as a gambit in their drive to increase girls participation in hockey at every level. I predict that some of the PAHL organizations in the region will try to follow suit if the Pens Elite programs work out and offer full-time girls teams for PAHL play, instead of the current model that is for part-time girls teams pretty much everywhere.

I could continue to write here about how the Pens Elite and other similar organizations have also damaged girls' hockey in the region, but that's a topic for another time. This move was inevitable, really. Hopefully the Pens Elite doing this will entice girls to keep playing at older ages, and enable the local organizations to build complete teams for them.

14 hours ago, Eddie Shore said:

Agreed.  It's the pens rose colored glasses that parents have that has always baffled me.  I'll look back through some of my old posts and try to find the one where some guy actually said that Mario can destroy youth hockey here is he wants, because he earned a "free pass" to do whatever he wants cause he kept the Penguins from leaving town.  That response still sticks with me today, as just a "wow" moment of just how bat sh1t crazy some people are here.

LOL. I remember that discussion. Good times.

11 hours ago, PuckHead7 said:

Actually, 2011’s are 9, not 11.  Two hour practices,  can’t wrap my head around what gets accomplished in the last 30-40 minutes of that practice twice a week.  Not putting Vengeance down, just seems very odd.  A good high tempo practice with kids that listen should only be 70-80 minutes tops.

Yes. I agree wholeheartedly. That feels like a recipe to waste half an hour of expensive ice.

Never had any issues there myself, but I've never been there late at night.

2 hours ago, The King said:

Serious question- why is a huge paycheck the only reason why someone would play for PPE? I think that it’s become the assumption in WPA that the hockey player contingent is slotted in 2 specific genomes. 1 being the dream chasers and 2 being the fun chasers. While you can come close to categorizing parents that way, when did competitiveness and training become such a negative aspect of youth development? I’ll agree that 90% of the posters on this board have kids who gave up or never wanted to play a sport in a competitive environment. I realize this means “winning record”, “playing your level” or “no blowouts” to some. To the rest of the athletic world it means (among other things)- trying out for a team (not having everyone make the team), training on and off the ice in order to maximize your athletic abilities and worth to the team, watching video and studying the game, accepting and executing your given role on the team and enjoying being a piece of a larger puzzle. Again, there are other factors but the point is, playing any level for any reason is not wrong. The recreational player deserves their outlet as much as the competitive player and vice versa. Where the problems lie are the folks that exploit the masses for monetary gain. This is not simply based on a teams record or the Tier they play. There are A Major teams that provide zero value to the players and whose only redeemable quality is the jersey they get for their fees. At least PPE trains every single player that comes through their ranks. Whether they get the opportunities they’re looking for or not. There are other programs at all levels that take pride in providing value. If teams are not, put the onus on coaches that over value their abilities or don’t care and the organizations that allow them. PPE leadership may very well be getting rich off of this. The fact remains, they’ve got the Tier 1 level locked up. 

This is a fair question, @The King. I was speculating about why a kid would come so far, to a place where they speak a different language, when opportunities much closer to home exist in abundance (and there are very good opportunities for development in Europe). This might have been somewhat uncharitable, but that wasn't my intent. Frankly, I don't have the issues with PPE that many folks who regularly post here seem to have.

As for the rest of your post, I generally agree with what you said.

1 hour ago, nemesis8679 said:

I would guarantee that not nearly all the best players would be on a team like that, because of financial considerations, being told where you must attend school, etc. Just consider how many great players never even got to that level to even consider this option because of finances or level of  time commitment. 

Also, if you were moving from Kazakhstan, Canada, Russia, or wherever just to play hockey- why relocate to Pittsburgh to do it? With all the other options available? Just seems weird to me. And for what? A 1/10 of one percent chance you'll ever even see a shift in the NHL, let alone a career? 

@nemesis8679 while I agree with you regarding your second paragraph, if we have learned anything from this message board, it has to include the realization that there are a very large number of people who are irrationally concerned with their player "getting the best opportunities" and playing a the highest possible level, rather than simply letting their player enjoy playing.

Now, regarding the question posed there, I assume that you move here from Kazakhstan because you haven't been given a better shot with anything really advanced over there - I haven't the foggiest notion what PPE-level opportunities exist in Kazakhstan, though obviously there's lots of high level hockey in Europe - and the PPE can offer you financial help courtesy of all the lower level players they accept solely to generate revenue for this specific purpose. My guess is that there is a certain type of person who views such an opportunity in the US as superior to one in say, Sweden, for obvious (if somewhat fantastical for the simple reason of the very long odds) reasons. It may be that in Boston they're not looking for recruits in Kazakhstan because their hockey culture is so much more advanced than that of Pittsburgh.

Lord knows. Seems like a serious ordeal to go through for such a small chance of the huge paycheck to me.

1 hour ago, dazedandconfused said:

Believe it.

Did you look at the drawing? The Pens ARE involved!!! And so too will be CCHS.

For the same reason that North Catholic is.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Not trying to make a joke. You can bank on it.

Wow, you were being serious?

I'll bite - so what?

Predicting that the Penguins might be involved in construction of a new rink is not exactly earth shattering. Of course they will.

Umm, fellas, I think the CC reference was a joke.

You know, something that rarely occurs here because too many folks have no sense of humor whatever.

At least I hope it was. I certainly took it as a joke. If it wasn't intended as a joke, it is simply another kind of joke.

20 minutes ago, Jack Handey said:

Not sure what the NP means, but if you are talking about North Pittsburgh - they play out of Baierl Ice Complex, not Pittsburgh Ice Arena.

Yeah, you're right. I don't know what I was thinking. Rough morning!

41 minutes ago, HereWithPopcorn said:

The Pete was in no way built to be able to flip to ice.  It was opened in 2002 for basketball and graduation, and the basketball floor remains in tact and covered for concerts and other events.  It isn't a mobile floor like you have when Duquesne plays at PPG, etc.

 

Yeah, I'm afraid that @HereWithPopcorn is right on this one. The floor there is a permanent wood floor. There isn't going to be any ice hockey there in our lifetime.

Don't underestimate a few things regarding the rink itself, too. You'll be going there quite frequently for six or seven months in the year, so the distance and convenience is a factor. Also, you'll actually be INSIDE the facility quite a bit; if it matters to you, for instance, Pittsburgh Ice Arena (NP) has a gym in it, a decent snack bar, and is convenient to the turnpike. Lots of parents take their kids to practice and hit the gym for a workout while their kids are practicing.

For me, the convenience of the rink to my home trumps all of these, since I am typically on the bench or on the ice with my kids anyway, and not standing in the lobby waiting. But I hear comments about these things from parents all the time (because our home rink does not have some of these amenities).

At any rate, because you'll be going there all the time, these are things to think about.

@RegDunlop7  and @fafa fohi made good points that don't need to be repeated. (Though I have to agree that when an organization messes around with schedules instead of having a set schedule for a season, it is pure misery.)