pickle

Take a look at the 14U (2009) this season. There were 8 teams in Mid-Am playing Tier 1 - 4 from Western PA (Pittsburgh), 2 from Ohio and 2 from Indiana. The two teams from Indiana did not qualify. Two Ohio teams are from Columbus and Cleveland, with home rinks separated by a 2-hour drive from each other and thus typically have their respective areas top players with little to no competition. Aside from PPE (which as pointed out on the board is generally the 1 or 1A team from the region), the other three teams were all from Pittsburgh (Predators, Vengeance and SHAHA) with home rinks all seperated by less than 50 miles (most 10-20 miles). Did these teams not deserve to be there? Should they have played and competed for Tier II? Looking at the rankings and final standings and such, if any of these teams would have dropped out and played for Tier II instead, they would certainly been playing for the Tier II National Championship next week, and would have been odds on favorite to be Tier II National Champions. So which is better? Being a top Tier I team and making districts with little to no chance of winning or being Tier II National Champions? If you surveyed all the players and parents on these teams, I would guess almost all would say they would rather be on a Tier I team and not win (as many probably somehow believe they can win). On the other hand, look at 16U (2007). There are now 12 teams competing for Tier I. Here you start getting competition from the Prep Schools - Culver and Gilmour, also Esmark which is also known to recruit from out of town for 16U and 18U, or otherwise get some PPE players when PPE does additional recruiting. But now you also add Icemen in locally. If you look at the six teams who did not qualify for Mid-Ams, locally you have Vengeance (89.51), Icemen (87.01), and Predators (86.22) - compared to the top Tier II local teams Armstrong (87.84), Steel City Renegades (competing for national championship) (86.84). Would these Tier I teams been better served playing Tier II and competing for the National Championship? What about getting to play local high school as well? Another factor everyone brings up is that it is about getting to and advancing to higher levels, particularly junior teams and college teams. A lot of the problem comes down to, and has already been addressed on this board, is that Tier II just doesn't get same level of recognition regardless of team strength, individual skill, etc.

Tier I and Tier II are the only designations that USA Hockey recognizes. AAA, AA, etc. are skill levels typically applied by leagues to distinguish their different levels and groupings. Independent teams are outside of league designations and can say they are whatever they want. The problem is that people always use these terms interchangeably when technically they are not. Tier I does not automatically mean AAA and Tier II does not automatically mean AA, etc. These AAA/AA skill designations generally were a factor of age level, but were more about team depth. The AAA/AA skill designations only mean something when they are given by respective leagues and tournaments and used for separating team levels. You now of the "AAA-Elite" designations to separate the top AAA teams from everyone else. Tier I means that teams can and do recruit and billet players from all across the country/world to assemble the best possible team they can regardless of where the players come from. Tier II requires that players generally reside within 50 miles of the teams home rink (varies by region) with some exceptions. Tier II was generally just the top AA programs from the respective local leagues (PAHL) and used to be happy playing each other to be the best local team. Tier I was reserved for the best teams who typically played outside of the local area and basically were "independent" or played in "AAA" level leagues and competed with the best of other regions. They used to be better/higher than the top "AA" teams from the local leagues. Tier I and Tier II officially only applies to 14U teams and up (now 13U at Tier I) and only those teams officially competing for the respective Tier I or Tier II National Championship, although associations emerged as "Tier I Programs" and typically refer to all their teams as Tier I, while other programs try to field both Tier I and Tier II (and all other level) teams. My understanding was that USA hockey was cracking down on programs fielding only 1 or 2 "Tier 1" teams. You basically had to have a full Tier I (14U, 15O, 16U, 18U) program. This limits the teams actually eligible to compete - but this doesn't mean teams can't call themselves whatever they want, whether it means anything or not. Obviously it is always about money and teams can charge more and make more money the higher level they call themselves and try to compete - whether they are at that level or not. The thing about MyHockeyRankings is that it gives a rating and teams are ranked accordingly regardless of what they call themselves.

This was a big call at a big moment in a Championship game when the game was still close. I am surprised the refs made the call. However, it was clearly a spearing motion and the penalty for spearing is a 5 minute major and game misconduct. The problem with the rules is that it was such a weak contact and the other player didn't even flinch or react further to it and can't even tell if the TJ player actually made contact. So perhaps the "intent to injure" could be argued. The TJ player could have cross checked him back, slashed his leg, started a bit of a scrum or many other more severe retaliation options and still got away with a lot less penalty time and be able to play the rest of the game. Hopefully this is a good learning opportunity and a good teaching example for other coaches to discuss with their players in the future. I know I will include in future video sessions with my players as we discuss these topics.

Did Mid-Am get their selections right? Any thoughts? https://www.midamhockey.com/page/show/5022910-development-camps-information

I can't believe I am saying this - but I actually agree with this. I think if PAHL did similar things like All-star games - including even the A Major and A Minor players - three separate divisions (AA, A Major and A Minor), perhaps explore moving teams up/down divisions around middle of season if don't get some placements right (yes I know logistics around game schedules), hire a video crew and do a featured game of the week like PIHL, etc., perhaps it would make it more fun and keep more players and teams around. It would just be nice to see some innovation. It will be interesting to see what the new leadership does.

First of all, are these PAHL teams or independent teams? It just makes a difference for how rosters and finances are resolved, etc. From a rostering perspective, you are not under any obligation for kid 1 to remain at organization 1. If you ask for your player to be released from the roster, you can and will be released from the roster. The organization has 7 days to release your child from the roster from whenever you request it,any time you request it. I have seen instances where players tryout at multiple organizations and don't tell different clubs and then three teams are all claiming rights to the player when rosters are submitted over the summer. The initial rights typically go to the first team that submitted a roster with the player on it. Just because tryouts at organization 1 were completed before organization 2 even started, this doesn't mean organization 1 has their act together and submits the rosters first. The financial aspects are a different story. This is the whole purpose of the commitment fee. You are making a commitment to that team and they are counting on your player playing for them. During the tryout process, it is effectively the cost of holding the spot. I know commitment fees are typically $400-$600, etc. If you accept the spot, and look to hold it until tryouts are over and then decide to de-commit, you should expect to have to pay it. The organizations are entitled to that fee as it effectively helps offset costs of replacing the roster spot. The cost is different for each organization, which depending on how many teams they have and can move players around and how many roster spots they have to fill from others declining, it may include supplemental tryouts. Like others are saying, if you are upfront with them and explain situation, a lot of times they will refund you. A lot of clubs will not want negative image of pushing for more money then they are typically owed based on when you decommit - considering if early on, before uniforms are ordered and before practices start. Feel free to PM me for additional information on the rosters or financial questions or if you need any assistance in a particular situation.

Probably starting to verge from the topic - perhaps what different programs offer and costs should be a different thread like the tryout times one. This comes up in discussion every year. From what I have seen, a lot of programs do advertise what they offer and you typically pay accordingly whether it is for the ice costs for full ice, half-ice or some kind of mix. Other teams programs have coaching costs, off-ice training costs, etc. I personally believe it is pretty well explained by most associations. If it is not or you can't figure it out, you probably shouldn't be pursuing it. This is again why good to have variety. Not all families/players are looking for the same thing. Some want a good experience for cheapest cost possible. Others want the most/best no matter what the cost is. Others want to find some kind of value in between. Again more reason to have more options.

This is to my point on the other thread about how there is the question on the Tier I and Tier II intent to register teams form that asks about your organization being ADM compliant. I don’t personally believe it is enforced. I had thought Aviators were going to die when it seemed their older teams aged out, but now they seem to have some strong younger teams and I believe new leadership in place. I had thought Huskies were going to die as their last team aged out, but the organization obviously found new life under Black Bear. I also don’t think there needs to be consolidation just for sake of it. I give props to larger organizations spreading talent out and making teams at all levels, but I would also hate to see something like North Pgh fielding 12 Peewee teams and all just playing each other all the time. The more programs and team there are - and even operating out of same rink - should be a good thing as it should help competitive balance and making sure organizations are doing the right things. If anything, it should show that there is a lack of ice in the area. It should give people an incentive to open new rinks and take existing programs and teams with them. This would perhaps help keep from having Middle School games at 10PM at night on school nights out in middle of nowhere and other problems associated with lack of ice time in the area.

I don't know how they do it either and also give props to the rink scheduler, but I also believe once things are setup for the season and you fit everyone into respective slots, it probably runs itself. It is three sheets of ice and believe they also have access to Shady Side Academy and believe some teams or practices are run out of there. So it is perhaps more like 3.5 sheets. Figure skaters take afternoon ice that the teams don't really use. Same with public skate on Friday nights. College teams take the place of men's leagues late night slots. Young Foxes are probably only 2 slots a week. Fox Chapel, Deer Lakes, Shaler are all smaller schools I believe with just 3 teams (MS, JV, Varsity). It looks like a lot, but if you break it down to actual number of teams and ice slots per team, it is probably comparable ice utilization on an individual sheet of ice basis.

Apparently at-large bids just go to highest ranking teams left? Also they keep their rankings for seeding purposes? At 14U Mission and PPE kept #2 and #3 seeds respectively despite losing districts and have much easier path to winning their respective divisions.

I will preface that I don't know who was selected - so if local teams got at large bids, I am sure they know already - so just speculating here. MyHockeyRankings has posted the District Winners and you can kind of figure out the seedings and potential at-large bids from there from who is left... Looking at some of the at-large bids options: 14U - Mission would definitely get one (#2) - but PPE (#3) should also get one 15O - No real Mid-Am contender for at-large 16U - PPE is not out of contention - but they are definitely a stretch. Performance at Mid-Am should rule them out, but no other Mid-Am team would be considered option despite Mid-Am (or even season) results. 18U - PPE should receive at-large bid - #6 rank - 2nd highest remaining seed; lost to Culver #2 rank in Final in OT. Wouldn't say Esmark is not deserving as five lower ranked teams advance with automatic bids from district wins - but their 17th rank also gives a few others a chance and that would also make three mid-am teams which is unlikely.

Schedules are coming out tomorrow at 12:00 PM - so all teams would know by now.

Everyone associates ADM with just with 8U (Mites) because that is where it started, but it was designed and applicable to go all the way up to 18U and beyond. Here are the guidelines for the different age levels. https://www.admkids.com/page/show/910488-what-is-the-american-development-model- I believe it started around the 2009 timeframe and it was intended that it would start with the 8U and then would progress to 10U in like 2011 and 12U by 2013, etc. by the time those players who went through it in 8U got to each development level, etc. The model was to dictate the number of players on teams, number of practices, number of games teams can play, amount and focus of off-ice training, etc. 8U (Mites) was intended to be strictly in-house. Only UPMC, North Pittsburgh and RMU seemed to go with the model as associations put up more pushback. The 10U level was still designed to be primarily in-house, with balanced teams, but I do believe it included transitioning to full ice and also allowed for inter-club play. At the same time, I don't know what stalled the initiative as everything seemed to just remain "guidelines" and were never required or formally implemented at the older ages like they were at the 8U level. I don't know if there was too much pushback from associations and the fact that not all associations are equal and perhaps could not meet all the criteria or just didn't like the model. Whatever it was, it just seems to have died. There is a part of me that believes that USA hockey kind of had to give up on it because they saw the threat of teams and players moving to AAU and if they perhaps kept pushing it and enforcing things at higher age levels it could lead more and more transition to AAU. With the program starting in 2009 at 8U, all the players who started going through it should be moving onto college by now. I don't know where the numbers are at as far as measuring success, but I know when they implemented it they were talking about things like increasing the number of US born players in the NHL Draft - 1st round and overall, number of US players in the NHL, etc. I can't really say the model has been implemented as it was intended across all ages to be able to evaluate whether it was successful or not. I know that when associations are to declare if they will be fielding any Tier 1 or Tier 2 teams (i.e. competing for National Championships) - there is a question on the application that asks "Is your club fully ADM compliant - Yes/No" and "If not, why not?". I think a lot of the time this is taken as "Do you have an 8U (Mite) ADM program" but I don't think that is the intention. It is more about - Do your teams have enough practices - with respective mixes of full ice/half ice/etc.? Do you limit number of games in the target ranges for respective age levels? Do you have appropriate off-ice training? Etc. I would argue many of the programs in the area - including many fielding Tier 1 and Tier 2 teams - do not adequately meet the ADM model criteria, but this is not enforced for being able properly roster Tier 1 and Tier 2 teams.

Brooke on the list is the Brook County School District in West Virginia. Host Schools have assigned co-op schools. I knew some of the relationships at one point. I would say generally the closest host unless the host is not able to accommodate the players for some reason. Generally one or two players from a particular district would not be a problem. I would suggest reaching out to the PIHL administrative assistant for more information - Carol Walker. https://www.pihlhockey.com/staff

Love the little girl in red getting involved and trying to punch the one guy.