Lifelongbender

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.

If football is important, then Pitt made a huge mistake by tearing down the stadium. That place was always packed. Heinz Field just isn't for Pitt. Of course, one could argue persuasively that it sure feels like they value basketball over football there. The RMU Island Facility is, or at least once was, a nice facility. But being off-campus surely hurt them. It will be interesting to see what Black Bear does with it (or whoever else ends up owning it). One thing is certain - the City can't afford to lose that much ice.

I don't see any university among all the ones in Pittsburgh poised to bring D1 Hockey in here anytime soon, either.

No. The WPXI article ends with this sentence: The university says it will be adding the club sports of women’s ice hockey, women’s golf, men’s rowing, and skating for the fall of 2021. And the RMU website statement includes this: The university is adding additional club sports, including women’s ice hockey, women’s golf, men’s rowing, and skating for the fall of 2021. This will give RMU 24 club sports, including three club men’s ice hockey teams. More than 400 students are currently involved in club sports at RMU.

How long until the new player in town owns the rinks on Neville Island? This is probably not great news for the hockey world in general in Southwestern PA.

Right. All the literature suggests ratios more like 2:1 practices to games or more. USA Hockey recommends between 3:1 and 2:1 for 14U and 16U players, and minimum 3:1 for any kids younger than that. In at least a couple local organizations 16U players only get 1 practice every two weeks. Now, that's clouded by the fact that those players are often playing school hockey in addition to amateur, and those kids are getting two or more practices at school hockey, but they also play more games in that situation. All of this assumes that the practices are well planned and well executed, too. You don't have to be a hockey player from your youth to be a good coach, but it sure helps. Around here alot of kids are getting poorly planned practices run by dads who played other sports.

There's that, and the simple fact that in Minnesota and Canada there are parents and other adults who grew up playing hockey. Here in Western PA we have the same level of parent experience for football, but not for hockey. That is changing over time, but the sheer number of adults with useful hockey playing experience available to work with kids is much larger in those markets. Former football players do not always make good hockey coaches.

I heard, but cannot confirm, dark rumors of ice now costing $500 for a 1.5 hour slot out at Center Ice. If that's the future, there are going to be a good number of players and parents with sticker shock, and that will price some players clean out of hockey, I figure.

This conversation gets MUCH worse if you concentrate on girls' hockey because there are fewer players. MUCH worse.

Seconded. No matter what the extent to which we don't hold a candle to Detroit hockey, or our parents are too stupid to understand scams, or whatever else has been repeatedly and pointlessly alleged on this site, one thing is true: ice hockey in Western Pennsylvania is improving significantly over time. It's so far above where it was when I was 16 that there are literally not words to describe how far its come.

You win, man. I have no idea why you think that "fact" - if it is truly a fact - is relevant to the question of how much the guy makes.