Loach

Going to be awhile before there's more D1 programs. It was never about the available talent, it was about the cost to fund the facilities and everything.

NCAA scouts have flooded the CHL (Canadian major junior) games recently and I expect most of the new commits over the next couple of years to be from there, with the majority being Canadians. So, no question that it's got even less likely to crack a D1 roster in the foreseeable future if that is your goal. And I say that as someone who has a kid playing free-to-play juniors right now. If your kid loves to play and wants to continue at the junior level, that's great. But, if you are hoping for a payoff at the end, prepare to be disappointed.

If it was $50 to access the video for the whole season, I wouldn't have a major issue with that. I doubt that is the case though.

Technically, rinks with LiveBarn aren't supposed to let spectators stream although no one enforces it. Is the poor kid at the counter really going to walk through the stands and stop people from recording? The reason I know this is that during COVID restrictions, when there wasn't a lot of spectators allowed in some rinks, I asked the rink for permission for a student to go in and record the game so those who couldn't attend could watch. At that time, the rink was only allowing one parent per kid to enter. Anyways, the rink manager sent me their contract with LiveBarn showing that they were supposed to prevent anyone from filming the game and spectators should be told to use LiveBarn instead.

As I said, no one enforces it in LiveBarn rinks - it just came up because we tried to be proactive and ask permission (mistake). BB will probably be a lot more stringent about these types of bans though, I would guess.

1 hour ago, Happy Hockey Fan said:

Are you putting that together for us? 

I think you quoted the wrong person, but I'd love to see how many of the tenders versus draft picks were on that team's roster at season's end. Too big of a job for me to do.

5 hours ago, twoboys said:

Thought you might find this interesting.  Rink Live looked into NAHL tenders.  Far more stick around than you think.

https://www.therinklive.com/junior-and-prospects/nahl/analysis-of-nahl-tenders-signed-in-2022-23-shows-which-teams-follow-through-the-most

 

 

Eyeballing that graph, looks like about 60% of tenders last year across the whole league were still with team in October. Honestly, that was about what I'd expect. No guarantee, but a decent shot at the team if you get one.

6 hours ago, YardSale said:

Based on that, MHR is pretty spot on.  

Yeah, it is really good by the end of the season. You still have to play the games, but it's the best indicator and glad they use it for Nationals despite what Gunty is spouting off about.

At 18u AAA, 10 of the 12 divisions have held their championships. In 9 of them, the #1 seed in MHR won. In the other one (which was Massachusetts and that was held back in the fall), the #2 seed won.

It looks like Avon, Central Mass, either Bishop Kearney or Long Island (whoever loses their district next weekend, assuming one wins) and either Neponset or Mt St Charles will get the 4 at-large bids.

I don't think Pens will get an at large bid this year at Nattys. I predict the bids will go out to non-qualifying teams based on MHR and I don't think the Pens are high enough this year.

Since the original post was about the Black Bear vs MHR ratings, thought I'd revisit to take a look. Last weekend, the THF Central division playoffs took place in Chicago. No Pittsburgh teams there so there's no real vested interests on this Board probably.

I'll stick to the 18s as that is the age group I'm most familiar with. 9 teams were there competing.

Here's the MHR of the 10 teams:

• 1. Biggby - 94.04
• 2. RM Roughriders - 93.74
• 3. Team Illinois - 91.79
• 4. Colorado Springs - 91.69
• 5. Tri-State Spartans - 91.59
• 6. San Jose Sharks - 91.29
• 7. Soo Indians - 90.74
• 8. Wasatch - 88.81
• 9. Indiana - 88.74

Here's the Black Bear Power Rating:

• 1. Biggby - 40
• 2. RM Roughriders - 34
• 3. Colorado Springs - 18
• 4. Team Illinois - 13
• 5. San Jose Sharks - 12
• 6. Tri-State - 12
• 7. Soo Indians - 7
• 8. Wasatch - 4
• 9. Indiana - 4

The THF league-specific Krach ratings are ridiculously bad, not going to list those out. Small sample size and very uneven schedules as those with easier schedules tend to be way over-ranked.

Final game was Biggby vs Roughriders, as predicted as a good probability by both rankings. Roughriders won. Other semi-finalists were Team Illinois and Tri-State (who bear Col Springs in OT). Springs seems a bit over-rated in the Black Bear rankings due to an easier schedule.

End result - both rankings did a decent job of identifying the top teams from the bottom, and identifying the likely top 2 (if you were talking about using either rankings to determine regional or national tourney eligibility). MHR, despite its faults, still seems the way to go in my opinion. But as they get more data, both get more accurate and Gunty getting into a pissing match with MHR seems like a pointless waste of energy.

He's not putting down Sid's production this year, I've deciphered it to: "Enter Sid and the participant numbers soar."

2 hours ago, fafa fohi said:

Ohio University sells out almost every home game at roughly an 1,800 capacity but that is because their rink is on campus and they have a strong networking system / social media presence to get students to come to games.  Don't know about other programs.

I have been to Duquesne and Pitt games at Alpha and attendance is abysmal.  

OU has D1 and D2 ACHA teams. I haven't been to one yet, is it just the D1 team that sells out?

I think I said this before, but based on personal experience, you do need both internal and outside evaluators. You still need the head coach to make the final call, but good for that person to have data to make the decision that comes from both assistants and independent evaluators. You need to have a fair and competent head coach who has a good group around him to hold him accountable. I've seen tryouts that lean too heavily on independent evaluations miss out on key players who are great contributors during the prior season but don't show well in the individual-oriented tryouts.

I like the Colorado system where there are no AAA teams until bantam minor.

Gunty is being an idiot, but yes, teams can just report their scores to MHR as before.

I don't know Gunty at all but his twitter feed makes him come off as a self-serving idiot. Seems like a pointless crusade over something that could be fine-tuned but works pretty well.

1 hour ago, fafa fohi said:

For Mid-Ams there are 11 teams in this group.  Will the top six or top eight advance to the Mid-Am tournament?

If six, only Esmark and PPE will be there.  Vengeance and the rest are on the outside looking in.

It's top six. (At least that's what it's been the last few years)

MHR is a godsend for managers trying to figure out what tourneys to enter or what independent games to schedule. That was the initial purpose and it is very good at it. Like any algorithm, it needs data to become more accurate so it is much better in the mid to late season compared to the start. It is also the best tool we have for determining the best teams in the country for things like Nationals.

I have some knowledge of 18U hockey right now, can't speak much for the younger ages, and I've watched games of many top 40 18U AAA teams this year. The ranking of the top 18U teams by MHR is way more accurate than the Krach rankings of some of these teams in THF. Very easy to game the Krach system by playing an easier schedule and racking up wins. People say you can game the MHR system by playing a tougher schedule, but I haven't found that is the case. MHR does run into issues when there are lots of games where teams are beating each other by more than the 7-goal maximum. The whole point of MHR in the first place was to try to provide data to prevent those match-ups from happening. If tourney and league organizers spent more time focused on that goal, there would be less issues all around.

Not always possible but here's what every coach/manager should be striving for: try to build a schedule where you are predominantly playing teams rated within 3 goals of you, and then you just need to worry about winning the game (not covering the spread). I'm talking about higher level, older-age youth hockey here, where coaching to win should be occurring. 

If the coaches are honest with the parents/players regarding their level of talent, I'm generally fine with players playing on whatever team they choose. With MHR now, it's pretty clear to everyone what level a team is at, it really doesn't matter whether they have 3 A's or 2. If you are ranked at the bottom of the AAA teams and lower than a bunch of AA teams, it doesn't matter the label, everyone knows you are AA at best.

It does bug me when these teams then schedule predominantly above their talent level, thinking they are going to magically compete. It's a waste of time and money for teams traveling distances to have to play some of these dreamers. I won't throw specific teams under the bus, but there were some examples in the THF tourney here this weekend.

3 hours ago, PUCKCOVID19 said:

wow the barons really fell off if they have stooped that low to play in this wanna be aaa league 

 

Weird league, some good teams and some terrible ones. Esmark 18s in it, but also Icemen 18s.

1 minute ago, aaaahockey said:

Are they actually playing games on it? 

Yes, the THF tourney is there this weekend. Great to have another sheet, although one would think that the planning for the non-ice amenities would have been better planned to be ready for season opening. Not a great look, hearing grumbling like this tweet from the Barons: https://x.com/U18CleBarons/status/1705276775821963265?s=20 

The rankings take awhile to even out for teams that haven't travelled yet to play teams outside their local bubble. Most AAA teams have played at least 2 showcases with teams from various regions at this point already. There will be some movement in the scores with larger sample size if a team had a really bad or really good game so far. But, I expect the overall AAA pecking order at the first ranking release will be a decent representation.

I was looking at the THF showcases today and they have the registered teams listed for each one. Predators 18U AAA are shown to be registered for the Pittsburgh Sept 22-25, Hershey Dec 8-11 and Ann Arbor MLK weekend showcases. Icemen are registered for the same 3 showcases. So, I assume Preds must have an 18U team. No idea who is on it and how they compare to say the Icemen or the Vengeance.

I don't have a current 16U kid, but if I was a PAHL board member I'd much rather have a league with some parity - maybe 5-6 teams that are all competitive with each other - than to have one team that dominates the league and is a national contender. So, whether or not the MidAm AA winner gets their 'clocks cleaned' at Nationals wouldn't concern me. If more high end AA/low end AAA kids are playing 16U AA this year and they are sprinkling across various teams, that's a good thing IMO.

I'm going to call all the rinks and get their front desk person to sign up for an account here. That will save us all the phone calls and we'll get the info here, all in one place. Efficiency!

It was a fair question that I also had passing interest in, hence why I clicked this link. But no, I'm not going to call the front desk girl, she's busy handing out rental skates... 

20 minutes ago, PuckerUp said:

@Loach, maybe I was mistaken and there was more than one evaluator watching, but I genuinely don't believe that was the case.  Yes, it's possible that evaluators were watching on LiveBarn, but why? At the rink, there was an area at the far end of the bar-side bleachers that was clearly marked (cordoned off) for Mid-Am personnel only.  During my son's four games there wasn't a single evaluator in that area.  The only other location where evaluators could be isolated from the general population was the viewing area above the benches.  That's where I saw one evaluator each time and one individual that was in charge of the clock.  There was one coach on each bench, but they never made any notes...maybe mental notes, perhaps, that were passed along later.

Edit...I meant to note that the bar area was packed full of parents all weekend, which meant evaluators were definitely not watching from there.

The times I went, the bar was closed off to the public and that's where the evaluators hung out. Guess there were some changes this year. It would make no sense to just have one evaluator but who knows with MidAm. As my kids have aged out, I'll defer to you and others with more recent info.

1 hour ago, PuckerUp said:

My understanding (which could be incorrect) is that this year the number of players a coach could nominate was loosely determined by the team's ranking at the end of the year.  Obviously, with two strong national-finalist squads in the Pens and Vengeance, both teams deservedly had many players attend.  I say loosely determined, however, because there were a couple of lower-ranked Western PA organizations that seemed to have a disproportionate number of players in attendance.  I'm not fully certain whether or not something changed from last year, but in 2022 we noticed nearly entire teams present for some low-ranked WPA squads.  Fortunately, that wasn't the case this year.  My son's team had eight players at the most recent tryout.

 

I missed the first part of this paragraph. If that was true, it would be a step in the right direction, because as I mentioned above - there was nothing stopping any coach from just nominating their team before. They must have finally wised up to this, there needed to be some restrictions on nominations.