PAHL Residency Requirements

[Jkersman01]

I'm curious, especially for some of you that have been around PAHL for a while- has there ever been talk of 'zoning' the PAHL teams whereby if an athlete lives within a certain zone, they are required to play for that team unless they obtain a waiver? I'm not advancing an opinion or agenda on this, just genuinely curious. I could see pros and cons with it. 

Frankly, I'm not sure club sports are allowed to do this. Maybe there are legal issues here. 

[PUCKCOVID19]

some states do this now 

[nemesis8679]

Some areas do this. I have no experience with it. But I can see good points and bad points with it. For example, it's nice when problem players or families can jump around every season- then you only might have to deal with them one or two seasons instead of every year, lol. 

[Seejay784]

That would be tough for someone like our family who is equidistant to Lebo, Shaha, and Preds and those are only 5 minutes closer than RMU. I don't know how they would carve up the boundaries. On top of that, the costs would need to be equal. I wouldn't be too happy if I was in the Preds zone and had to pay way more than someone else playing at Mt Lebanon.

[sarampage]

Players in the CSDHL (Central States Region) are only allowed to move once up to 16U.  They get one more move at 16U.  Keeps some players from jumping around every year in Tier 2.

Edited October 5, 2022 by sarampage

[Wes]

42 minutes ago, sarampage said:

Players in the CSDHL (Central States Region) are only allowed to move once up to 16U.  They get one more move at 16U.  Keeps some players from jumping around every year in Tier 2.

I'd be in favor of a system like this.  That way you go where you want but you can't hop all the time.

[Lucky17]

43 minutes ago, Wes said:

I'd be in favor of a system like this.  That way you go where you want but you can't hop all the time.

Except there is no governing body preventing hopping around between non-PAHL teams.  We know USA Hockey won’t.

[aaaahockey]

Or you get with toxic parents or a toxic coach or toxic players - is there an appeal process? 

[Saucey]

Nothing should prevent an organization from booting bad kids and families. Most organizations have rules that can be enforced. It might help clean up the bad behavior everyone complains about and from having those bad eggs just getting moved around from organization to organization. If you can't move junior,maybe people are forced to play nice. Eventually they do run out of places to play, but it takes forever since we are blessed with a lot of rinks.

Irish dance prevents you from competing in certain sanctioned events for one year if you move schools. So you can move whenever, but you know you won't be able to compete for a while. USA hockey and Midam could do that. Wouldn't matter if you played independent or pahl, if you changed within the last year, no nationals or playoffs or whatever. So it really only affects the higher talent who want to qualify for Worlds or Nationals. Everyone else can go where they want. You could have it so it only applies to AA. People could still move to develop their kid, they just wouldn't get into the bigger competitions for a year. Or play A major for a year.

It would encourage organizations to grow below instead of just pilfering from all the big organizations. It would apply to independent as well....you might pick up those kids, but you can't use them in that year's playoffs or tournaments.

It would make families consider more carefully where they go play, it retains some choice for families, but eliminates the grass is greener jumping that encourages bad behavior from coaches with recruiting. Which is on the books that you aren't allowed to do wink wink wink wink.

It is really hard to develop properly and run an organization when people can just jump jump every year. This is broader picture stuff. I do believe our market is driven more by parents than a broader picture for development overall.

[Lifelongbender]

13 hours ago, sarampage said:

Players in the CSDHL (Central States Region) are only allowed to move once up to 16U.  They get one more move at 16U.  Keeps some players from jumping around every year in Tier 2.

This seems like a good idea, or at least the kernel of a good idea. It's hard to see how a regional scheme - like they do in little league - would work, since there are so many fewer rinks than baseball fields, and significantly fewer players, too. As far as I know, though, it's never been discussed anywhere but on this board, where a system like this gets talked about once or twice a year. (For all I know little league isn't regional anymore, either. I may have just shown my age. When I was a kid you played little league for your home borough.)

In our region team shopping is a really serious issue. Every year there are lots of players who try out for every organization they can reasonably get to for practices and commit to the organization where they make the "highest" team. Which feeds into teams adding those extra As just to attract players to tryouts and teams. It's a ridiculous self-reinforcing cycle that makes it hard for organizations to put up consistent teams and hard for players to make informed decisions about where they want to play. Not to mention that changing organizations can come with substantial (and typically non-transparent) costs for jerseys, warmups, equipment bags, etc.

My kids played for the same organization for their whole careers, but my observation is that hopping around team shopping doesn't work out too well for the kids most of the time, either. Turns out that the grass is just about the same shade of green everywhere for most players. And when you change organizations, you don't have friends there already, or connections, or that one coach who knows your kid and wants them again this season. Plus there's the issue of kids getting negative reputations for jumping around. If they're good enough it doesn't much matter, I guess - someone will always take them - but for most kids getting that label is a bad thing. 

@Saucey made a good point above. It always seems like this sort of hopping around is driven more by the parents than by the players. In the end, it's the decision of the families involved, but it seems like as often as not families make decisions that prioritize "status" over development. 

[Corsi]

The issue I would have with some of this is what happens when a player from a smaller organization "outgrows" that organization?  Should a "AA/AAA" level player be forced to stay and play at a lower level that is inappropriate for their skills, or should that player be allowed to "shop" for an organization/team that fits their needs better?  I get the desire to keep the shopping to a minimum, but I really don't see how any of the ideas being thrown around would work due to the number of rinks we have in the area, as well as the wide gap we have in organization sizes.  

Edited October 5, 2022 by Corsi

[Novos51]

28 minutes ago, Corsi said:

The issue I would have with some of this is what happens when a player from a smaller organization "outgrows" that organization?  Should a "AA/AAA" level player be forced to stay and play at a lower level than is appropriate for their skills, or should that player be allowed to "shop" for an organization/team that fits their needs better?  I get the desire to keep the shopping to a minimum, but I really don't see how any of the ideas being thrown around would work due to the number of rinks we have in the area, as well as the wide gap we have in organization sizes.  

I second this. We have a lot of smaller organizations that will never have anything above A Major in a good year. Lower in bad years. Their will always be a handful of players who would benefit from a AA level that just isn’t available at smaller organizations 

[LGP13]

This is a terrible idea.

Speaking personally my child stayed with a team for the last few years, same coach. We recently changed programs and having a new coach has done great things for my kid's development. Fresh voice, varying coaching philosophies, etc. Everyone preaches to let players have creativity on the ice, now you want to pigeon hole kids into programs that might run things one way? I'm sure the kid that makes plays east to west and opens room for his teammates would love to play on a team that just dumps and chases because their 95 year old coach did that when he played and there is no other way to play the game.

My piece of advise for anyone on here, look for a team that has a great coach that will push and teach your kid the game, let them be creative and have fun. Who cares what logo is on the front of the jersey or any accolades that might come with it. Of course finding a team is largely based off what your kid wants. If he wants to stay with friends and play then you have to take that into consideration, but forcing kids to play on teams based off where they live is not a good idea at all.

[Jack Handey]

There has been PAHL talk of "catchment" boundaries in the past, especially with harder to find players such as AA players and female-only teams.  As someone pointed out - it falls apart in the south hills because of rinks' close proximity.  It is noteworthy that the PIHL followed some general geography rules to stand up the inaugural girls league.

I'm for free market and believe consumers should go where they are best served.  I've seen all angles of this and while I think players should be able to change programs, from the perspective of the board of directors:

• we have no problem charging high tryout fees to discourage shopping,
• we have no problem charging high tryout fees to keep the "it's extra ice time" crowd out,
• we have no problem keeping commitment fees (or more) when players walk away after accepting a spot.
• and were it up to me, I would make all participant families sign a contract promising to pay the season fees in full.  

[Saucey]

2 hours ago, LGP13 said:

This is a terrible idea.

Speaking personally my child stayed with a team for the last few years, same coach. We recently changed programs and having a new coach has done great things for my kid's development. Fresh voice, varying coaching philosophies, etc. Everyone preaches to let players have creativity on the ice, now you want to pigeon hole kids into programs that might run things one way? I'm sure the kid that makes plays east to west and opens room for his teammates would love to play on a team that just dumps and chases because their 95 year old coach did that when he played and there is no other way to play the game.

My piece of advise for anyone on here, look for a team that has a great coach that will push and teach your kid the game, let them be creative and have fun. Who cares what logo is on the front of the jersey or any accolades that might come with it. Of course finding a team is largely based off what your kid wants. If he wants to stay with friends and play then you have to take that into consideration, but forcing kids to play on teams based off where they live is not a good idea at ala

My suggestion was that you can play wherever you want just not compete in the good stuff for a year if you change. The point is there is so much shopping people who run organizations have trouble fielding teams. The AA player in a small pond could get out. Maybe an exception is made for a player who reaches that level but his program doesn't have it.

Kid doesn't make a team parents think he should have, parents get bent out of shape and leave. A lot of times, once the dust settles and a season gets under way, if they stayed it becomes apparent the skill was judged correctly. Kid has a fine season. But in that haze of anger, they left.

I mean, it could always be tweaked to address whatever. I would never want to hold a kid back from developing. I think the people who run these organizations and coach are saying...what happens now is not good. Parents are not the best judges.

The point about smaller orgs is good....but then those smaller orgs sometimes just raid and recruit to get a AA team. They did squat for investment at lower levels to grow, but they told that dad coach he can do what he wants, sure bring your prayers over. There is no incentive to try and grow.

The trend now is paid coaching at Tier II. That would change it up every age group.

Or don't do a league at all. Everyone be independent. Scramble to make a schedule. Bore your players to tears by only playing for a ranking.

I think AA pahl's final nail in the coffin will eventually be Black Bear, anyway. But some people are retiring from PAH

5 minutes ago, Jack Handey said:

There has been PAHL talk of "catchment" boundaries in the past, especially with harder to find players such as AA players and female-only teams.  As someone pointed out - it falls apart in the south hills because of rinks' close proximity.  It is noteworthy that the PIHL followed some general geography rules to stand up the inaugural girls league.

I'm for free market and believe consumers should go where they are best served.  I've seen all angles of this and while I think players should be able to change programs, from the perspective of the board of directors:

• we have no problem charging high tryout fees to discourage shopping,
• we have no problem charging high tryout fees to keep the "it's extra ice time" crowd out,
• we have no problem keeping commitment fees (or more) when players walk away after accepting a spot.
• and were it up to me, I would make all participant families sign a contract promising to pay the season fees in full.  

Most organizations do this and it hasn't slowed the shopping down. People who can afford multiple try outs don't blink at further fees. People are nuts.

Don't do it by geography. Play where you want, but suffer some sort of penalty for moving. Or limit number of moves in a lifetime like someone said. I like that idea for hockey. That allows a skilled player to get out of a small market or escape a bad coach.

I am all for development and doing what works to develop kids. I just think parents shouldn't have the pull that they do around here. Most are horrible at judging their own kid's skill. 

Punish recruiting when it is reported. There's one.

[Lifelongbender]

2 hours ago, Saucey said:

Punish recruiting when it is reported. There's one.

This is a serious issue in this area for reasons which I don't want to start on, because it would take up a whole page, especially with Girls hockey.

[Carl Racki]

If this were to happen it would just kill PAHL further and create even more independent teams. 

[Saucey]

44 minutes ago, Carl Racki said:

If this were to happen it would just kill PAHL further and create even more independent teams. 

Even if they can't compete in midams? There are still a lot of kids playing PAHL. Just AA wandering off.

[sample39]

On 10/5/2022 at 10:32 AM, LGP13 said:

I'm sure the kid that makes plays east to west and opens room for his teammates would love to play on a team that just dumps and chases because their 95 year old coach did that when he played and there is no other way to play the game.

This comment made me laugh.  I bet that 95 year old coach has won a lot of games playing a defense-first system, including big games, and especially against teams who love the east-west skill game.  Believe me, that approach will open up more ice for your skilled players, and usually in high-percentage scoring areas. 

I agree with you though.  Having options is a great thing, and finding the right fit for your player is essential to their development.  You shouldn't be forced to stay in a situation if you are unhappy.