Black Bear Business

[zam]

I only have the slightest bit of knowledge about the Black Bear group. So I'm genuinely looking for some insight from somebody that knows something about them. Yes I read thru the other thread about them buying up the rinks, forming these leauges and tournaments, seemingly getting involved in every aspect of youth Hockey.  This business model seems like it could make perfect sense, they take what are essentially ma and pa local ice rinks that are often struggling, and take advantage of economic efficiencies of running a larger all encompassing business.  And hopefully that is the case.  

But you only have to look back a few years to Legacy global sports. They were buying up all the tournament companies and seemingly consolidating all the youth sports. Scouting kids, building selects teams, running camps, tourneys and everything else.  Then suddenly without much notice Legacy was in bankruptcy.  Teams and parents were left without tournaments and team and tournament fees were long gone.  The South Kent select boys fled across the border and set up shop at Bishop Kearney.

I don't know if you can draw any similarities here, but both were cases with private equity money suddenly poured into the industry. And I'd have to think there should be some concern of things ending badly.  Anybody care to tell me I'm crazy to think this?

[Jkersman01]

I don’t know much more, if any more, than you about Black Bear. But the major difference between the two seems to be that Black Bear is more about hard assets (buying the rinks) and the annuity that local orgs and leagues can bring.
 

I know that might sound ridiculous being the regional leagues they have, but my understanding is that’s really only designed for the top teams and girls teams. I don’t see, or hear, where they’re pushing Squirt B teams to play the regional hockey league. Seems like they are aiming to keep their local league affiliations but use them selectively.
 

I can say with virtual certainty that the Legacy model really was stretched during COVID. Look on the girls side- Premier Ice Prospects acquisition is a good example. What states could even host tournaments for 12-18 months? Maybe being grass roots was better than some monstrosity at that point. Especially in the north (hockey region of US) where restrictions were tighter.
 

If you’re an investor, do you cut bait or withstand a capital call? I’ve heard there were some weak grips at legacy, being predominantly a tourney company, that would rather cut losses and get out than invest and hold firm. Especially considering legacy was virtually all payroll- easy to unload compared to owning rinks. 

[HSFBLJ]

Once they roll out the Mite AAA and AAA learn to skate programs they will be able to print money.

 

[HockeyFan6687]

8 hours ago, HSFBLJ said:

Once they roll out the Mite AAA and AAA learn to skate programs they will be able to print money.

 

They got the Mite AAA market exploding in East!

[HockeyFan6687]

So here’s a good question… if USA Hockey forbids member organizations to run full ice mite and basically not follow the ADM which doing so can result in sanctions to your program the how is this not what they are doing?  BB is taking over USA Hockey member programs in its rinks and also pushing these full ice AAA programs despite calling it another name and registering under AAU….is this not a major issue having all of this intermixed?   
 

also what happens in a few years when either A) BB starts shutting under performing rinks or B) they’ve stretched beyond their means and ends up belly up with a lot of rinks out of business?

is the monopoly really a good idea?

[aaaahockey]

$2750 for mites seems a bit steep!  What do they charge for elite mites in Cranberry? 

[zam]

I'd imagine if they own multiple rinks in a region and ice utilization drops they will consolidate all the teams and programs into other rinks and shut one down.  They won't sell it to someone else to compete with them as an ice rink. It will become a Christian church or a YMCA like the last couple rinks in the area that couldn't find a buyer.

AAU is the work around for fielding full ice mite teams.  The programs that compete as sanctioned USA Hockey teams aren't going to compete full ice. They will spin off a separate program that roster AAU.  And they will claim no affiliation.  They are the Pittsburgh Icemen when they compete at USA hockey events, and they have a separate Pittsburgh Snowmen jersey for when they compete Full ice mite.  (Before you all go look for Tryout dates for the Snowmen, it's not a real thing, just an example) lol

 

 

[LGP13]

1 hour ago, zam said:

I'd imagine if they own multiple rinks in a region and ice utilization drops they will consolidate all the teams and programs into other rinks and shut one down.  They won't sell it to someone else to compete with them as an ice rink. It will become a Christian church or a YMCA like the last couple rinks in the area that couldn't find a buyer.

AAU is the work around for fielding full ice mite teams.  The programs that compete as sanctioned USA Hockey teams aren't going to compete full ice. They will spin off a separate program that roster AAU.  And they will claim no affiliation.  They are the Pittsburgh Icemen when they compete at USA hockey events, and they have a separate Pittsburgh Snowmen jersey for when they compete Full ice mite.  (Before you all go look for Tryout dates for the Snowmen, it's not a real thing, just an example) lol

 

 

I've refrained from responding to this nonsense, but since it is gaining traction, I felt like I'd add my 2 cents.

This is criminal all the way around. First there are people who are taking advantage of parents who don't know any better, and then there are parents who actually think that full ice mites are a great idea and support this travesty. USA hockey revamped the way they train and grow our youth. If anyone is a coach, they have seen the CEP classes that basically explain how USA sucked at development, so they paid experts to examine Canada, Sweden, Russia, all the other great hockey countries and see what they were doing differently than us. It comes down to the size of the rink/nets and play surface, which effects the puck touches and development of the kids. Full ice minimizes the amount of puck touches the kids get per game/practice, which in turn slows or hinders their development. Basically, have small kids on a huge playing surface that takes the "game" out of the game. I won't even go down the path of goalies and having 3-foot players in a 4x6 net.

I feel like most everyone in here is on the same page with this and understand why full ice mites isn't optimal at all. The people that are selling this "product" should be ashamed of themselves and the parents that think it is a great idea to "make their kid better" deserve what they are getting. Overpriced experience, with less development, and absolutely no upside.

[forbin]

2 hours ago, aaaahockey said:

$2750 for mites seems a bit steep!  What do they charge for elite mites in Cranberry? 

$2650! (Yellow helmet not included)….

The 66ers play as the Pittsburgh Knights AAU, there was a team called Rampage, and a team called Whalers last year. It’s happening here kind of under the radar (for now) until BB makes it a thing here like they are in the east.

I think USA Hockey does a poor job of transitioning mites to squirts in regards to full ice play. I think that all final year mites should switch to full ice for the second half of their last mite season. Instead they offer “transition camps” and try to teach the entire game in like 4 hours. Then you have first year squirt teams who spend the first half of their season learning the game. It’s kind of a mess in my opinion.

[Icebucket]

2 hours ago, zam said:

I'd imagine if they own multiple rinks in a region and ice utilization drops they will consolidate all the teams and programs into other rinks and shut one down.  They won't sell it to someone else to compete with them as an ice rink. It will become a Christian church or a YMCA like the last couple rinks in the area that couldn't find a buyer.

AAU is the work around for fielding full ice mite teams.  The programs that compete as sanctioned USA Hockey teams aren't going to compete full ice. They will spin off a separate program that roster AAU.  And they will claim no affiliation.  They are the Pittsburgh Icemen when they compete at USA hockey events, and they have a separate Pittsburgh Snowmen jersey for when they compete Full ice mite.  (Before you all go look for Tryout dates for the Snowmen, it's not a real thing, just an example) lol

 

 

I 100% think the icemen should just rebrand as the snowmen. Love the idea haha

-Snowbucket

Edited March 14, 2023 by Icebucket

[Spear and Magic Helmet]

1 hour ago, forbin said:

$2650! (Yellow helmet not included)….

The 66ers play as the Pittsburgh Knights AAU, there was a team called Rampage, and a team called Whalers last year. It’s happening here kind of under the radar (for now) until BB makes it a thing here like they are in the east.

I think USA Hockey does a poor job of transitioning mites to squirts in regards to full ice play. I think that all final year mites should switch to full ice for the second half of their last mite season. Instead they offer “transition camps” and try to teach the entire game in like 4 hours. Then you have first year squirt teams who spend the first half of their season learning the game. It’s kind of a mess in my opinion.

This is a long time ago that I read about this, but the ADM model originally wasn't just supposed to be mites. Squirts was supposed to be half-ice and there were similar guidelines for squirts. That stuff just never got implemented in this area. USA Hockey probably does have a transition to full ice program somewhere in that ADM model, but if you just throw out ADM after mites, then you never use it.


https://www.minnesotahockey.org/news_article/show/1060586

[pickle]

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.

[Loach]

As my time being involved with youth hockey is coming to an end, I'll offer my 2 cents. There is always a significant vocal group parents clamoring for full-ice mite hockey, and so these AAU teams will have the demand. It feels more like 'real hockey' to these parents so it must be better for the kids' development. I completely support the ADM model of half-ice/small nets and agree with the principles, and I think it pays dividends for USA hockey in general. There's no need for full-ice at mite where you have the top players on each time just going coast to coast over and over. I also think the transition to full-ice is pretty simple and there doesn't have to be any type of prolonged transition period. It takes a few kids a couple of games to understand offsides and icing but everything else gets figured out pretty quickly. My guess is USA Hockey learned it was never going to fly with parents at the squirt level and that is fine - focusing on just the mite levels is a decent compromise.

[Carl Racki]

13 hours ago, HockeyFan6687 said:

So here’s a good question… if USA Hockey forbids member organizations to run full ice mite and basically not follow the ADM which doing so can result in sanctions to your program the how is this not what they are doing?  BB is taking over USA Hockey member programs in its rinks and also pushing these full ice AAA programs despite calling it another name and registering under AAU….is this not a major issue having all of this intermixed?   
 

also what happens in a few years when either A) BB starts shutting under performing rinks or B) they’ve stretched beyond their means and ends up belly up with a lot of rinks out of business?

is the monopoly really a good idea?

No, this monopoly is definitely not a good idea for the consumer.  They never are.  Notice how they buy up a bunch of rinks in an area so they have enough market control.   Then, they move on to the next area.  After they buy enough there they will head to the next area,....

 

Not good in my opinion.  Seems they usually come in and raise prices.  If you look at their older rinks out towards Philadelphia, they are in rough shape after years of ownership.  I would rather have hockey people that care come in and buy the rinks and actually mamagi them.  Great example is Baierl and Jim Black.  Hockey guy came in, bought a rink that was going into shambles.  He really did amazing things there and I do appreciate it.  The current ownership of Frozen Pond also put a lot of time and money into that rink as well.  It has come a long way.   Some of the BB rinks in Philly I have been to look like they get minimum to maintenance.