Corsi

I get what you are saying, but my entire point is: "Do what is best for your player and your family, ask questions when you have them, ignore the negative, and make sure they are having fun."... agree or disagree, but it is not up to a family to make a decision about where to play based on the impact it is going to have on the "local competition" or the "kids not affiliated with those organizations". The issue there is with the structure of hockey as a whole, but even with that being the case players can only participate within the structure they are presented with. We focus on hockey, but this is the same route all youth sports are taking and have been taking for the better part of probably close to 30 years.

I wrote this back in June, but I feel like it applies again to the above rant: My son as since aged out, but he started skating at 4 and the question my wife and I asked him all the time was "Are you having fun", "Was that fun", "Are you still having fun"... we did it constantly, to the point that it probably annoyed him but it was because we always wanted to be sure that he was doing what he wanted to do and not what we wanted him to be doing. Let your player have fun, progress at their own pace, and then make your choices about what to do based on what they want to do along with what your personal time and financial limitations allow. Most people realize that the odds are against any player/anywhere in the world going pro so ignore the criticisms you are going to hear from other people and parents about things like where you are choosing to play, where you are choosing to spend your money, and how much money you are spending. People (especially on this board) like to be critical of the choices people make even though it has zero impact on them directly. Do what is best for your player and your family, ask questions when you have them, ignore the negative, and make sure they are having fun.

I'm not 100% sure but I'm pretty sure that MidAm is still using MHR for invites to the District Tournament. As long as that is the case if anybody intends on competing at Districts/Nationals they still will need to report, correct?

I believe the roster is available for Vengeance on their site... I'm not sure what the quality of play will be, but it appears they are going to be "AAA" at this point.

I heard the same thing from a few different people.

Most scientific studies are done without "complete data", researchers compile enough data to form a representative population size and use that as the basis for a conclusion. There are and always will be outliers, and those are normally not used because they are so outside of what the expected norm would be. Obviously, we are not doing medical research here, but this comment is correct, based off of what is shown, the missing data would have to skew dramatically one way or another to significantly move the overall results one way or another. There's probably enough provided here to be pretty confident that the 50% number is representative of the whole give or take a few percentage points one way or another. Maybe assume that number would fall in the 47%-53% range. Thoughts?

My son as since aged out, but he started skating at 4 and the question my wife and I asked him all the time was "Are you having fun", "Was that fun", "Are you still having fun"... we did it constantly, to the point that it probably annoyed him but it was because we always wanted to be sure that he was doing what he wanted to do and not what we wanted him to be doing. Let your player have fun, progress at their own pace, and then make your choices about what to do based on what they want to do along with what your personal time and financial limitations allow. Most people realize that the odds are against any player/anywhere in the world going pro so ignore the criticisms you are going to hear from other people and parents about things like where you are choosing to play, where you are choosing to spend your money, and how much money you are spending. People (especially on this board) like to be critical of the choices people make even though it has zero impact on them directly. Do what is best for your player and your family, ask questions when you have them, ignore the negative, and make sure they are having fun.

Did anyone officially find out if Vengeance or Stars (not Esmark) were able to pull "AAA" teams for the upcoming season? Someone said they sent offers, but not aware if rosters have been posted anywhere.

I get the idea of keeping players in "house" leagues and not doing the travel stuff, but we need to remember that many of these players and parents have already done what the programs offer. Some programs only offer "Little Pens" or "Learn to Play" and then their progression is to move into their ADM/8U program which then necessitates travel for jamborees. I feel like many parents would rather travel a few times on weekends to play at a different rink than have to drive once a week to find an "in house" program if their "home" rink doesn't offer one. I am not sure if the programs that operate out of rinks with a single sheet of ice have the ability to offer much beyond the "Little Pens" to ADM progression due to ice availability.

I agree with much of what you said, but you left out the need to properly educate the parents of these kids when the kids are just entering a program at a young age. Parents seem more than happy to have their players play in whatever organization is closest to home or where ever the kids friends are playing at an early age, but as they age and the conversations about progression begin to happen, many of these parents take whatever they are told by whoever at face value. Parents need to understand things about how hockey is a "late acquisition sport", what terms like "Tier 1" and "Tier 2" mean, what the "path" for hockey is and isn't, and also what the real chances are of their player "making it" regardless of what "making it" means to each family and player.

In this situation, you are probably correct. Esmark was attempting to resurrect something that blew up last year. The consensus has been that parents and players are not going to do the drive to New Kensington. If we look at where the current AAA teams are for 2009, there is PPE (Cranberry), Preds (South Hills), and SHAHA (South Hills). No idea what has/is happening with Vengeance, but Esmark seems to come down to location.

There are always going to be "enough customers" and that isn't just for hockey, people will buy into anything. I've said this in prior posts, but the 2009's are now hitting that age where USA Hockey historically sees a drop in registration numbers regardless of the reason (jobs, significant others, booze, etc). Also, it has been stated before that some of these players are needing to decide about PIHL vs. travel hockey and everything else going on in their lives.

If the discussion is still about players from Pittsburgh going to Barons, that is a 2hr drive depending on where in the Pittsburgh region you are coming from. Not all the players from Pittsburgh that are going up there are going to billet, some have the ability and the willingness to do that drive. Believe me, I've heard of parents driving what people would consider "crazy" distances to give their kids opportunities that were not available to them in other areas.

From what I understand it is not mandatory but it is highly encouraged for the boys teams. The girls seems to operate slightly differently, but I have heard from a parent that has a girl playing there that they are also highly encouraged to do Excel as well.

I heard something very similar.

The key, is having a parent/player education program in place when players are just beginning to enter into playing hockey. In my opinion, there is no harm in sharing with parents at the 8U and 10U levels information about what the hockey "path" is and what the odds are of their player reaching Junior, D1, etc. It is the organizations and coaches that do not do this that are doing a disservice to people. For better or worse, hockey is not structured like baseball, football, or basketball which are what most parents think of when it comes to youth sports. As far as the "too much travel hockey", there is no choice, but to travel. There are not rinks in every neighborhood like baseball fields or basketball courts. Hockey has always required more travel than "traditional" sports because of a smaller population and the scarcity of facilities. I would think if this was a different region of the country or Canada there would be more options to "stay local", that being said I feel like the issue isn't the travel, but the shear number of games some teams play. Some travel teams are playing 50-60 games and then the same players are also playing 20 PIHL games, so these are 14-19 year old's playing somewhere in the ballpark of 70-80 games and that does not include 2/3 practices per week for each team.

The former '09 team split up between Preds and Allegheny Badgers. I don't believe any of those players are coming back, so not sure where they are going to get the players to fill an '09 team.

That does nothing to advance what this discussion has been about... The argument was never that there are not quality players at the D2 level, it was that those players numbers are inflated because of the competition level at that division. The way that I've understood what has been argued is that the D2 players point totals would regress towards the mean when faced with a higher level of competition. It is nearly impossible to compare player stats across levels. This whole thing reminds of when I coached and parents would be telling me how good a player is by quoting the number of goals, or points, a player has (all of which where always outrageous numbers) but then when I would look into what level the player was playing at I almost always found out they were doing it on a team playing at a low level of competition. The point of reference is what is most important in a discussion like this.

OK... so back to the Stellar 6 discussion, would the best player(s) at D2 put up similar numbers against AA competition if they are still on their D2 team and playing at that level? I feel like that is the question that started this discussion. Based off of some of the responses, unless the player(s) in question are good enough to carry a team, my instinct is that the answer is going to be they would not.

I feel like it this is an "apples to oranges" comparison, so let's try this. I have been told that in other high school sports the teams that are co-op are placed in a division based off of the combined student bodies of the schools who compete on that team (this was in relation to boys lacrosse). I am going to venture a guess that this would put the majority, if not all, D2 teams into the PIHL "AAA" division. Can somebody who knows more about D2 give a guess on how they would match up with that division?

As an official, sometimes you do miss the secondary assist, when that occurs I normally ask a coach or the goal scorer something like "which d-man made the 1st pass?" or something along those lines. They are good with giving me a number 99% of the time and I have to trust that they are going to give me the correct information. I only ask if I know that there was a 2nd assist and I missed the number, I won't hand out an assist just because a kid skates up to me and claims to have made a pass. If teams want to send in stats corrections, so be it. I'll be the first one to admit that I'm not perfect but I can say that I do the best job that I can when I'm out there. I always wanted my son to get credit for points when he deserved it back when he played so I make it a point to give these kids the same credit today.

This breakdown of US Junior seems correct. As far as having players go to Junior for a year or two following their HS graduation does make some sense. Hockey is what's considered a "late specialization" sport, which means that players don't reach their peak until mid 20's. This is compared to "early specialization" sports like figure skating and gymnastics (mid/late teens). It only makes sense that college coaches would be looking for players who are physically, mentally, and emotionally more mature than a 17 or 18 year old who is just coming out of high school and is probably living life on their own for the first time ever. With the players staying home and experiencing the "rites of passage" that is an individual player's decision. Historically, the registration numbers for USA Hockey tend to begin to slide around ages 14-16. The theory has usually been that players and their families are making the choice that the expense and time commitment is out weighed by the desire to do things like hangout with friends or significant others, have a job, party, etc. As long as organizations are up front with players and families about what the expectations are and what sacrifices may have to be made, I don't see a problem.

Really, "the ultimate consequence", actually that's incorrect. The lowest consequence for a spear is the call which was made, a 5 minute major and a game misconduct. The "ultimate consequence" escalates to a match penalty. Yes, "everyone in attendance was dumbfounded" might be correct because they were watching the play up ice as opposed to away from the puck. The rear official that made the call is 100% doing the job that he is out there for, which is to be especially vigilant for penalties which occur away from the play. Regardless of if the spear was "violent" or "soft", a spear is a spear.

You forgot wasting your money and "drinking the Kool-Aid"!