Lifelongbender

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.)

23 minutes ago, dazedandconfused said:

Different entities, different players. Zero crossover. Period. How hard is it to understand that the Prep players are there to live the dream and line the pockets. The school players are there to get an education and be student athletes. Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

And, of course, there's also the inevitable question of why the whole thing is such a big deal to so many who aren't directly affected. If the kids' families have the money to pay-to-play, and it matter that much to them, so be it. It's on the kids and their parents to do the research and be properly informed.

1 hour ago, RegDunlop7 said:

Really like this design. I've seen different plans, but this one definitely stands out as the best in my opinion.

I agree 100%. This design takes care of one of the crippling issues that site would have had - parking. I can't see any way to make the Armory work without parking vehicles inside the building, under roof. I also read that the City/County/DOT have committed to upgrading the local road there. Because access to this location is the other crippling issue. It is not going to be an easy site to get into and out of, and I bet the locals come to hate the rink almost immediately because of the traffic.

42 minutes ago, Jjinson said:

There is an issue with these plans though... how are you going to be getting a zamboni on the ice?

Well, I assume that if you can build a sheet of ice and a refrigeration plant this way, you can get the Zamboni up there, too. Hard to imagine they missed that in their considerations.

Dumber things HAVE happened, though.

One of the guys I know sent me to this website when I just asked him:

http://www.perkinseastman.com/project_3432843_hunt_armory_ice_complex

And to this website as well:

https://www.nextpittsburgh.com/city-design/hunt-armory-ice-rink-office-development-moves-forward-thanks-to-state-grant/

The key takeaway is a paragraph near the bottom:

"Once completed, the new and improved complex will be centered around two skating rinks — an NHL regulation-sized rink and a smaller, 100-by-60-foot rink."

That's one sheet of hockey-suitable ice. It would appear that parking is planned for indoors.

I've heard conflicting rumors about this, some from people in a very good position to know. I'd love to hear the truth on it, too.

I don't see how six hockey teams could drive to, park at, and then get out of the Armory at the same time (if they use the typical two on the ice, two coming in as two leave model). I'd heard they were planning to park cars under the Armory's roof, but I then heard that was off the table. And I just don't see how the neighborhood roads can handle that level of traffic.

Cool building though.

34 minutes ago, discodan said:

Bottom line is the preds were once a good organization but now its all about the money. If they let the aaa kids play on aa where they belong they would still have good teams.

These two sentences probably apply to the "AAA" teams at every organization in the entire tri-state area.

If an overnight camp is what you're looking for, my kids have both enjoyed the Kent State camps for several years. It's close to home and reasonably priced.

Boys, at some point you have to come to the realization that trying to convince a guy he's being a jerk ends up making you sound just as bad as it goes on. Just go to your account settings and ignore the guy who bugs you and your days will be much happier and maybe we can actually talk about hockey constructively rather than just argue about who is the bigger 1) idiot and/or 2) jerk.

Just my $0.02, but I actually like the hockey talk that sometimes breaks out here during the fighting.

For my part, I haven't seen any evidence that fear of competition is a serious issue at the JV games I attend with some regularity. I guess maybe I'm stupid, but that's my observation.

I don’t know about the Vengeance, and the various reasons why a rink would or would not have LiveBarn. But I do wish that LiveBarn had a Roku app.

YMCA (the old Bethel Park Bladerunners) doesn't have it.

43 minutes ago, rock said:

so i heard the hearing for the plum players went south pretty quick.. one of the players lost it during the hearing and they immediately gave everyone involved in the incident from plum 5 games. 

Obviously this is hearsay, but you're saying that a player who was at the meeting for a disciplinary hearing lost his temper? Wow, it's hard to see how that could happen. You'd think they'd have been well coached before they got there.

Of course the entire incident probably invalidates the supposition that the players are well coached. But that's just hard to imagine.