Lifelongbender

I firmly believe that girls' hockey would be much more robust in the area without PPE. My complete list of reasons for thinking this are too complicated for me to type out while at work, but there are many here who probably know what I am thinking about. Short version, to start, is that girls get tempted by the 'Elite' programs when they are young, and those programs take everyone, because that's how they help pay for the older players. Over time, those girls tend to lose any affiliation with organizations they started with, all the time thinking (because most of their parents are relatively naïve, not being hockey people themselves) that their girls are really elite-class players who got in on the ground floor. And then, as @Sauceynoted above, they reach an age where the elite organizations aren't taking everyone, and on top of that the local girls are now competing with players from all over. And when they don't make a team at the elite organization, some of them don't really have any idea where to go to continue, because so few of the local organizations have girls teams at any ages, much less the older ages, despite that 14U and older girls teams should be prevalent because of the start of body checking, and because - let's face it - PAHL girls hockey is noncompetitive. Many organizations have several coed teams at each of the age levels, but can only spare ice time for one or two girls teams for all ages combined. There aren't any single-sheet buildings supporting more than two girls teams and many of the more significant organizations in the city don't have a single girls team. I understand the allure of the elite organizations, and the drive to compete at a high level that draws the players to them, and entices the parents to buy in. But I firmly believe that the way that these organizations tend to operate is damaging to girls hockey in the long-term.

This looks like a pretty good field of competitors!

Well, it certainly wasn't happening in Pittsburgh.

I cannot tell you how many times I have seen officials get confused about the different rules for the same age levels, too. Also, can anyone make sense of the fact that JV uses 13 minute periods, while both midget age groups (16U and 18U - the same age range as JV) use 15 minute periods? By the way, that means that JV penalties will now be 1:30 minutes long. Midgets, too, but JV? Come on.

Oakland Raiders? Sorry, Las Vegas Raiders. That's harder to get used to than Indianapolis Colts.

That makes sense, then. My first thought upon hearing the new name was that you were a bit too far north of the Mason-Dixon line for that, but upon reflection I thought it might be aiming for that.

I vote for a Tusken Raider!!! Sorry, it just seemed appropriate.

Is this a Whiskey Rebellion reference, at least? I don't hate the logo or the color scheme, but I do have my doubts about that name.

In theory they still do. I don't think PAHL even knows yet what the process is going to be for this season.

The upper level games are going to get longer, especially since delayed offsides is permitted at high school games. I wonder if we will see an increase in curfew games.

See this page. As far as I can tell, rule changes are proposed, reviewed by the relevant subcommittee, and discussed in a open forum where the committee also makes a recommendation on acceptance. The Board of Directors then votes on each.

Based on the rule change proposal document explanations, it's gain the red line. It's changes 114-117 in that document.

For years I have assumed that the reason they REALLY didn't allow tag-up for younger players was the fact that refs at that age could be pretty young themselves, and they were trying to make it easier for the younger refs. That wasn't why they said they didn't allow it, but it made more sense than the BS they did give us about it. I guess they're trying to make it easier on the refs still willing to work games at any level, then? The creativity argument is silly. You're not learning to play hockey that way, or at least not learning to play it right.

Well, it's official. Delayed offsides was eliminated from all levels of youth hockey except high school at the USA Congress last week. From the USA Hockey website, a summary of the rule changes (with my emphasis added): The explanation from the rules committee says this: This is absolute malarkey, in my view. It's inconceivable that this rule change would be voted for by hockey players at any level, at all. (Not a big fan of not being allowed to ice the puck on the PK, either, but I find that much less egregious.) Note that while the explanation suggests that high school shouldn't have delayed offsides, too, the summary says that high school will still have it. We'd discussed this when it was proposed sometime last year, and here it is come to fruition. There's our wiser masters at work. I'm disgusted.

I believe he means that the NY teams are in their own district, while Erie is in MidAm.

Not to mention calling an underage player out in all but name. That's pretty shameful, in my view.

What I meant was substitute another D1 sport for hockey, and then become relevant. You are, of course, correct.

I agree with @forbin. It's hard to imagine that they did what they did without a plan for selling the rink - why cancel the D1 programs if you plan to keep owning the ice? (The reverse - selling the facility but not cancelling the programs - would be MUCH more understandable, and it'll be much cheaper to rent ice for the club teams than it is to maintain the entire facility.) I don't have insider information here, but it would not surprise me to learn that they had a plan to cancel the D1 programs and sell the rink, possibly/probably including already knowing who would actually be buying the rink, at the time they were planning the basketball arena. I know this is pure unsupported conspiracy theory, but it just has the feel of a long term plan to stay relevant in D1 sports while transitioning to a less expensive sport.

The biggest knock on Black Bear I have heard so far is the increase in ice time costs at Delmont, which again I heard from a source I trust but I cannot actually confirm it with data. The increase described to me didn't normalize the cost for ice there with other rinks; instead, if true it would make Delmont the most expensive rink I know of to rent ice time in. If that price increase is typical of their takeovers, that could be an issue for both organizations and hockey and skating instructors over the long term. I assume most organizations have longer-term contracts for ice that preclude large price increases in the short term(I know the one my kids play for does), but that may not be true for all organizations, and also those contracts that do exist will end eventually. Of course it's possible that after contracts expire, organizations will pay a bit more and independent ice rentals will cost a bit less. But that sort of adjustment never seems to happen.

Agreed. The petition isn't going to make a difference anyway when nobody pays to see what was a very good hockey program play. I'm more concerned about the rink staying open, which is something that someone like Black Bear could actually ensure. Even if the program was resurrected, who would still be willing to play there after the way the school dissolved it without warning once already? I'm sure there are players without another option, but recruiting could never recover from that.

I guess a cynic might note that, should they sell the island facility, it's much cheaper to operate a basketball arena than it is to operate an ice rink. And one could also observe that the basketball arena happens to be on campus - this has been noted above, I believe - and therefore much more accessible to students. Plus there is the fact that they just built the basketball arena. It's honestly not hard to imagine that this was all in the works way back when the new basketball arena was planned. I'm not saying that's the case, and I am definitely not saying that I have information about this of any kind. I'm just thinking out loud that the idea is plausible. One can imagine a long-term plan that even had a buyer for the rink in mind. Their press is now saying that the current number of D1 sports they sponsor is more inline with other schools of their size. It can't be the case that this was spur of the moment.

I hadn't heard about PIA being sold to BBS. Is this conformed? That's a rink that could use some TLC.

@mrfreeze Yeah, sorry if that comment seemed out of line. It just seems like any time anyone says anything positive about an organization they get accused of being shills for it. I was just kidding around. I always wondered if the Bladerunners might have fallen victim to that sort of thing, actually. If that's true, it makes sense.

I don’t thing it’ll be cheaper to own the ice for those teams than to rent from someone else and let them insure it, and maintain it, and operate it. We shall see. @Saucey is right on that.

Some of this I agree with. I am not an expert in what organizations are paying across the city, but for the two whose organizational contract rates with rinks I have heard about, $400 is well above what those organizations pay for the ice. It may be that at Center Ice the rate for the Badgers is less than what they're charging hockey schools or other private parties. I don't know what the Badgers are paying for their ice out there. I'm the one who said that about Delmont, and I heard it was $500 for an hour and a half out there from someone I trust (but I have not called the rink to get a quote myself). No question that competition for PIHL especially would be incredibly beneficial. The rules for Middle School rosters alone should make school programs want to look elsewhere. Any league that competes with them will be welcome, as was Alpha's this season. Listen, keeping RMU open and operating is incredibly important. And let's face it, if ice rinks were hugely profitable operations in SWPA, there would probably still be several Bladerunners around the city instead of a bunch of former ones operated by different entities. Bethel Park Bladerunners was at essentially 100% utilization for both those rinks at the time of the sale - heck, SHAHA was using about 80% of their available ice themselves, talk about guaranteed sales - and the owners still chose to sell it to the YMCA, which doesn't really want to own an ice rink and never hid their intentions to get rid of one sheet right away and the second ASAP. Nobody here has actually claimed that they heard that Black Bear is buying RMU, and although my first post asked how long until the new player in town owns it, my point wasn't specifically about Black Bear but just a guess that RMU will be sold right quickly. I cannot imagine that Robert Morris will want to continue owning an ice rink without D1 teams to put on the ice. It's critical that Pittsburgh not lose that ice. Whatever may happen to ice costs in the aftermath of all of this is just the way of the world. As has been noted elsewhere on this board as recently as today, it's already absurdly expensive to put a player on the ice. Another prediction: it won't be two hours before someone accuses @mrfreeze of working for Black Bear.