Lifelongbender

19 hours ago, dazedandconfused said:

I've heard both sides. You say they're good, others say he's just out there herding cattle and collecting money. I know this much, he caused the Beaver organization a lot of headaches by booking clinics and then sending other people to run them because he was off collecting money from another organization at another rink. I don't think there is a whole lot of morality shown by him. Not that the same can't be said about many others doing the same thing.

I'm sorry to hear that. I can only speak for the ones my kid went to, which he was personally there for, and the mandatory coaches checking clinic I went to when I started coaching bantams a few years back, which he ran personally, and which was better than what I expected. I thought those were good sessions. I'd be disappointed, too, if I had those experiences.

I'm nearer to where he is, though. Might be that he's more likely to come out himself down this way.

19 hours ago, dazedandconfused said:

Maybe he should have been doing those during his playing days? For his own development. #drillkillerhimself

Well, however he may have practiced as a player, his on-ice sessions are pretty good.

I haven't watched his off-ice videos, though. I'd guess they are pretty good.

On 3/21/2020 at 11:20 PM, nemesis8679 said:

Yeah that was a good article. Also the one one Michel Briere. 

Yeah, that one was a good one, too.

There's a remarkable article on The Athletic (sadly, a pay site) about a small number of the things that made Mario great. The video cuts are worth reading the whole article.

I don't normally think posting this sort of thing here is right, but in a spring with no hockey, this article is a breath of much needed oxygen.

https://theathletic.com/1685688/2020/03/19/marshall-the-tape-on-what-made-mario-lemieux-le-magnifique/

1 hour ago, The King said:

I’m not sure I understand. You’re saying the government (State and federal) isn’t deciding the processes regarding COVRID? You think USA hockey makes these decisions on their own? 

Perhaps I was unclear, if you sincerely thought that first sentence was what I meant. Those two sentences are not mutually exclusive. From a regulatory standpoint, the government is making at large decisions about businesses being closed and gatherings being restricted.

At the same time, I do think that, like virtually all companies and organizations in the US, USA Hockey is setting their own official policies, in addition to those of the Federal and State authorities. In general, those policies are probably based upon, or actually nothing more than references to, government policies. I am entirely unsure what would happen if, for some reason, the government said it was OK to resume normal living and USA Hockey still wanted people to hold off on hockey operations. It's not clear to me what effect a USA Hockey policy would have in this case. Since the organizations rely upon USA Hockey for collective insurance, they may have more influence on organized hockey operations than expected. The assertion made above that the purpose of insurance provided by USA Hockey is to protect USA Hockey is only partially true; the insurance makes it much less expensive (and, perhaps in some cases, is the only thing that makes it possible) for local organizations to have insurance to protect the local organizations, and to protect the rinks. Without the insurance provided by USA Hockey, it's likely that many organizations would not be able to afford insurance in order to have operations.

This is all academic, anyway, because I strongly doubt that USA Hockey would adopt a policy that was at odds with a government policy. In the case of complying with a government policy, that is its own built-in defense in a court room (which could be either weak or strong, depending upon the issue and the case, and the locality).

26 minutes ago, The King said:

I agree. Nobody should be having tryouts. But it has nothing to do with any perceived authority the governing body has to tell anyone they should or should not. The state and federal government is deciding what is acceptable and what is not. But here’s an example of what I’m talking about- say the CDC has given an all clear on July 1. USA hockey sets a date of August 1 For commencement of tryouts. Local rinks will open ASAP in order to begin making money again whether USA hockey says so or not. So if the rink is going to hold the clubs to their contracts, why would anybody not have evaluations, set a roster, and start practicing ASAP? If your answer is because USA hockey said so, you’re wrong. They have no legal authority to keep any organization from conducting business. That includes forming rosters and collecting fees in order to pay ice contracts. Simply doing things because USA hockey says so is irresponsible 

Obviously I don't agree with all of this, but the final truth is that we will see what happens. It's easy for any of us - myself included - to make predictions we will ultimately not be held up to scrutiny for.

You just can't have tryouts, or any other events, in the face of a set of best practices prepared by the governing body. This is for both liability and optics reasons. Nobody will hold tryouts if USA Hockey tells us not to.

22 minutes ago, sadday4hockey said:

This is assuming that everything post-virus is status quo. I just don't see that being the case.

Starting at the Tier 1 level, PPE and Esmark mainly, are people going to be so quick to make that huge financial commitment?

For some, and maybe many, there is the reality that hockey gets axed from the family budget. I definitely see this having a major impact on the sport both Nationally and locally alike. Perhaps it will help to fix a few things and keep more teams playing more local hockey instead of the independent Tier 2 and faux AAA schedules. Unfortunately, it's also going to create a decrease in the number of participants next season.

You will also see a lot more "choices" being made between School hockey and amateur hockey. No longer will there be as many players able to make the financial commitment to both teams.

That's an interesting take, @sadday4hockey. I hadn't considered the financial component of the current crisis in my model. I don't think it changes how tryouts will work, though.

On the other hand, there is probably an interesting discussion to be had on the potential effects of the COV-19 situation on hockey in the region in general, assuming that it continues to be an issue for any significant period of time. Surely there will be financial effects in everyday lives over time. That was a very interesting answer.

11 hours ago, hipcheck66 said:

Here’s how this will work most likely:

PPE will announce their post-Virus tryout schedule

Other organizations will attempt to schedule in the week to 10 days that follow

Since this is exactly how organizations schedule normally, this seems the most likely outcome this time too.

1 hour ago, Jack Handey said:

Not in my organization.  April decisions are made in April. 

Honestly, and sincerely, that's great. That's probably how it should be.

I'm not an expert on other organizations, but in my organization the top teams are, in general, pretty much set (maybe needing to add a player or two) LONG before tryouts. I'd guess that's true of others, too.

50 minutes ago, Chinstrap said:

Probably not a stretch to think that most every organization already has their top two or three teams at each age grouping already chosen; probably been chosen since January or so.

This is surely 100% true.

14 minutes ago, forbin said:

In theory couldn't most organizations hold tryouts even as late as June/July and still keep there normally scheduled August practice start times? Yes, this wouldn't be ideal, and I know there are teams that practice and/or play in tournaments over the summer but at least it wouldn't derail next season completely. I am still optimistic that the real big threat and impact of this will be a thing of the past come May or so.

Well, yes, assuming that the ice is available. Many rinks have already contracted out their ice for the summer nearly completely. This is a challenge. It's not an easy situation, sadly.

This as been on my mind. One assumes that contingency plans have to be in place (though the way that most organizations work, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that most of them don't have a plan at all). I know I have been talking to people about this at our organization.

My kids are scheduled to tryout in mid April, and their tryouts begin just at the outside edge of most closures. It's certainly interesting times.

They told my son's JV team that it was postponed.

Honestly I suspect cancelled anyway.

1 hour ago, Saucey said:

Don't you guys have anything better to do? Danner27 and The King (think it is the same guy) love it when someone takes their bait. Just move on.

I agree.

Whether or not they are the same person, one thing is clear: it's not worth feeding their fire by responding to them just to argue about who is a parent on a team. They both say things worth debating from time to time, but in the end those discussions seem to always turn to accusations that the other party in the discussion is a parent on the team, as if that is somehow sufficient to invalidate whatever that person may be saying.

I'd love to debate hockey topics here, and not have to spend time arguing about whose kid plays on what teams. That's not worth discussing, except where it has an actual bearing on a conversation rather than merely being intended to somehow belittle a parent.

For the record, my kids don't play for ANY of these organizations, and are both A players. I enjoy this discussion board when there are useful discussions about hockey and related topics. I don't see how arguments about who has the bigger stick are useful. It's best to just ignore the boorish behavior (when it happens, and from anyone) rather than giving the guys who post that stuff what they want: attention.

Just my $0.02.

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.