pickle

Per USA Hockey Guide Book (https://cdn1.sportngin.com/attachments/document/0039/8240/Annual_Guide_2425_web.pdf): Page 124 D. Exclusions from Unified Procedure (1) General As a matter of policy, law and practicality, there are matters that at least initially do not or should not be subject to the Unified Procedure. Any matter not specifically excluded from the Unified Procedure shall be covered by the Unified Procedure. (2) Purpose It is the purpose of this Bylaw 10.D. to distinguish those disputes and actions that do not require a hearing prior to imposing a suspension or discipline or that require different procedural handling and safeguards, and to set them out separately in order to highlight any uniqueness such disputes and actions may possess. (3) Exclusions (d) Assault on Game Official Assaults on Game Officials are violations of USA Hockey Playing Rules and as such are subject to the provisions for Playing Rules Suspensions. In the event of a match penalty for assault on a game official under Playing Rule 601(e)(1), the offending Party shall be immediately suspended from all USA Hockey sanctioned activity. For penalties assessed under 601(e)(1) that are affirmed after a hearing, the offending Party shall be suspended for not less than one calendar year with one year calendar year probation thereafter. In the case of a match penalty for assault on a game official, the applicable USA Hockey Affiliate, its designated hearing body, or the Junior Council sanctioned league shall exercise original jurisdiction in such matter. NOTE: The intent of this provision is to remove local organizations from the hearing process, to ensure that disinterested parties conduct the hearing and to establish jurisdiction in the Affiliate only. Any game official assessing a penalty under Rule 601(e)(1) shall file with his/her USA Hockey District Referee-in-Chief a written game report within forty-eight (48) hours of the incident. The District Referee-in-Chief shall immediately investigate the incident and promptly submit a written opinion, together with the game sheets and reports to the applicable Disciplinary Authority, indicating whether Rule 601(e)(1) has been properly applied to the circumstances involved in the incident, or whether the incident falls under a different playing rule. A copy of the Referee-in-Chief’s written report and opinion shall be sent by the Disciplinary Authority to the player, team official and game official involved. Suspensions imposed under this bylaw subsection shall be immediately reported to USA Hockey national office, to the applicable Affiliate Association(s), and the appropriate registrar(s). The Registrar may accept a registration subject to the terms of this suspension

Always great to see such talent in the area! So much great hockey and still a couple days left. NTDP has a game tomorrow at 2:30 PM. Congratulations to the 2009 PPE winning the 15U division! Hearing the semi-final game against the Predators was a close battle. Cleveland Barons also were tied with Mount St. Charles into final minutes of the other semi-final. This is a good look for Mid-Am District having all three teams in the semi-final out of 26 total teams in the division. 16U and 18U tournaments just got started and run through Monday.

Good topic and discussion so far. The selection process for Select 14s and 15s camps/tryouts is notably distinct from that of the Select 16s and 17s due to the greater availability of data on older players. Consequently, there are fewer opportunities at higher levels, such as 16s and 17s, where it is expected the top players have matriculated to the Tier I teams or prep teams or even junior teams compared to the lower levels of 14s and 15s, where a larger pool of players are invited to ensure a more thorough evaluation and get more looks at players who may not be as well known. This is particularly important for identifying standout Tier II players who might otherwise go unnoticed during the season. Evaluators for the camps come from diverse backgrounds, including coaches from various Tier I programs across the district, regular Mid-Am district evaluators (I am guessing referred to here as the "dinosaurs"), and other representatives from other district affiliated hockey programs like high schools and colleges. These evaluators provide a mix of perspectives, though some may have more knowledge of the player base than others. For the 14s and 15s, during the initial round of evaluations in Sylvania, typically 8-12 evaluators focus on skaters, with an additional 3 specifically dedicated to goalies. This ensures a comprehensive assessment of each player's skills and potential. In subsequent rounds, the number of evaluators is reduced as you don't have as much player base to cover and also to maintain more impartiality and try to avoid biases associated with specific programs as there is attempt for more independence and partiality. Player selection for the initial tryout camps is primarily based on evaluations and rankings provided by their head coaches, which you would expect the coaches to take their regular season statistics into consideration, but that is all the further that statistics come into play. I don't understand where people get this "taking regular season statistics into consideration". You can't compare statistics across teams with varying levels of competition and skill. Statistics of a Tier I player on a top Tier I program can't be compared to a Tier II team. Teams do not play in competitive leagues and strength of schedules can vary significantly. In previous years, evaluators utilized detailed spreadsheets to rate players (+/-) on specific skills like skating, shooting, puck handling, hockey sense, and competitiveness among others. The data was all fed into a computer and it spit out the top players, much like a bell curve. However, recent changes have shifted towards a more subjective evaluation approach. Evaluators now focus on identifying players who consistently stand out and make an impact during the sessions/games, akin to selecting "three stars" in NHL matches. They identify the top 8-10 players from each session/game, regardless of team (can all be on same team or mix between the two). This method prioritizes qualitative assessments over quantitative metrics, ensuring a more nuanced evaluation of each player's performance. It also keeps evaluators focused on the play and looking across players rather than trying to pick out certain players and looking at a particular skill in effort to complete their spreadsheet and in process missing plays by other players along the way. The data from all the evaluators is still fed into a computer and it spits out the top players to advance. Some players stand out all sessions/games, some may only make it on three, others two and others one or even none. Again, you still tend to get a bell curve and you are only going for the top half, so having a few good shifts or scoring a couple random goals may only get you so far. Also to note, all evaluation forms have the evaluator name and contact information on them. They are not anonymous. Again, you expect to see consensus across multiple evaluators across multiple games. Any evaluation that is suspect may have follow-up with an evaluator and any suspect rankings may get removed from process and evaluator may not be welcomed back, etc. So it is in their best interest to do their best. Following the initial round, approximately 70 players, representing about 50% of the initial tryout invites, advance to the second round. There the focus narrows to selecting the Top 15 players - Mid-Am is allocated about about 8-9 forwards, 5-6 defense and only 1 goalie spot, which is about 20-25% of those who make it to this stage - a little bit harder for goalies with only the 1 spot. Both the 14s and 15s get rated and ranked, even though the 14s don't advance to a national camp. The 15s advance to the national "camp", which brings good exposure itself as this is an important year for the 15s, and where the scouts for major juniors (USHL), major prep teams and other scouts for even colleges start to identify and target players. However, it is the older "festivals" at 16s and 17s is where players are working to earn spots on the national "select" teams to represent their country in the respective international tournaments. This is not to be confused with the NTDP. Players are not working for spots on the NTDP from these PDCs and Festivals - although not saying stand out performances in these events could come into play - just saying the NTDP is a different process. Also, for those not familiar the "development camps" are more focused on development and include practice sessions and tend to focus on individual player skills and provide feedback on improvement. The "festivals" are more about the competition and intend to serve more as a platform for showcasing talent in a more competitive environment. As players progress through subsequent age groups, competition for selection becomes increasingly fierce. The evaluation process evolves accordingly, with an emphasis on identifying players who demonstrate consistent improvement and adaptability across multiple years. While the system isn't perfect, I disagree that Mid-Am is not committed to sending their best players to advance and represent the district at national events. If you have any specific questions, feel free to DM me.

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.