Too Many Programs?

[No Politics]

Hi, folks.

I know this topic comes up as parts of other threads, but I feel it would be a good talking point (especially around tryouts) to discuss how many programs there are out there, how they are all vying for the same kids, how it ends up diluting the entire talent pool, and if hockey in Western PA would be better if we had less programs.

My kids are older, and I only have one left in PAHL/PIHL, but I always try helping the families of younger players.  I even keep a spreadsheet of tryout dates, costs, etc. of programs in our ares (the North Hills) all in one sheet so I can help them make sense of it all.

I have to be honest:  My head is spinning this year.  We all know the gamesmanship that takes place, like "who is going to hold tryouts first," but this year is even quirkier than usual in my opinion.  Maybe it's the Black Bear effect, but it's definitely more convoluted.

Again, being in the North Hills, the big dog is NP.  They stand alone and seem to run a good program, but are not always convenient for some folks. Then you have ALL the others.  Those are the programs other posters have mentioned fight for the same kids, then end up having a team of one AA-level player, a few A Major players, and some A Minor/B players sprinkled into a team of eleven kids who play A Minor Black or something.  That is not fair to ANY of those kids, yet it happens each season.

I've NEVER understood that, and thought I'd start the discussion so that maybe we can help younger families here, too.

[Lifelongbender]

This issue is magnified many times in girls' hockey, where especially at the older ages there are fewer players to fill out teams. Maybe now that so many organizations are trying to take girls seriously things will improve. Until the very recent past most girls stopped playing when they reached 14U or so because of the size differences between them and the boys that were trying to body check them. Hopefully now that organizations are trying to field decent teams girls will not quit the game and there will be more players at the older ages.

There are more "Tier 1/Tier 2" girls organizations in the city than there are players who can actually play at that level. The competition for those girls is fierce and I have wondered from time to time if the players themselves are actually being served by this situation.

[Saucey]

No the players are not being served. If the result is this mismatch of talent, someone isn't developing or playing at the right level.

[nemesis8679]

What I think would help a ton is if there were a few more in-house leagues. This gives kids that aren't as serious or just want to have fun or something to do the option of teams to play on, without the commitment of travel hockey. As it is now, they end up in PAHL. Where some of them (or their families) don't really want to travel anywhere, and really aren't interested in playing competitive games. Some don't want to come to practice. Or have more interests than hockey. So what happens? They commit to travel teams because they're interested just enough to want to play, but not enough to work hard. So teams get watered down. 

Also fewer "AA" teams (you could say "AAA", too). You have so many AA teams, that most of them have a couple actual AA players and are filled out with A Major players. A Major then ends up having some A Major players, and filling out with A Minor players. Not sure there's a solution to this one though, not when bragging rights of an extra A and money are involved. 

 

 

[Icebucket]

46 minutes ago, nemesis8679 said:

What I think would help a ton is if there were a few more in-house leagues. This gives kids that aren't as serious or just want to have fun or something to do the option of teams to play on, without the commitment of travel hockey. As it is now, they end up in PAHL. Where some of them (or their families) don't really want to travel anywhere, and really aren't interested in playing competitive games. Some don't want to come to practice. Or have more interests than hockey. So what happens? They commit to travel teams because they're interested just enough to want to play, but not enough to work hard. So teams get watered down. 

Also fewer "AA" teams (you could say "AAA", too). You have so many AA teams, that most of them have a couple actual AA players and are filled out with A Major players. A Major then ends up having some A Major players, and filling out with A Minor players. Not sure there's a solution to this one though, not when bragging rights of an extra A and money are involved. 

 

 

It's all just a trickle down. Half the AA kids play "AAA", then half the A major players get bumped to AA as a result 

[nemesis8679]

21 hours ago, Icebucket said:

It's all just a trickle down. Half the AA kids play "AAA", then half the A major players get bumped to AA as a result 

Yeah that was my point

[HatTrick]

I would love to see an in-house option at every rink.  But it's going to take the rinks to buy in and invest in hiring a hockey director to run the leagues.  

[aaaahockey]

2 hours ago, HatTrick said:

I would love to see an in-house option at every rink.  But it's going to take the rinks to buy in and invest in hiring a hockey director to run the leagues.  

Organizations can make a bit of money doing it too and not the rink.  I believe both North Pittsburgh and Morgantown have been doing it for a while. It gets harder at the older levels I guess - would have to ask RMU but they seem a bit odd because the lines between organization and rink are more blurred? 

[No Politics]

All good points.

In regard to the girls, my friend has a daughter who just decided to play hockey last season at 12U.  She is admittedly (and understandably) not very good, and she is moving up to 14U.

I've been looking, and I only found three programs even offering girls hockey at a normal, non-national bound level:  NP, Huskies, and Badgers.  That's a shame.

And the in-house ideas are brilliant.  When I was a kid, sports were just for fun (like in-house).  Like you guys said, when you have competitive travel hockey that takes in kids who belong in in-house, it waters everything down even more, makes it less fun, and forces kids to play at levels they don't want to.

And reasons like that are why I asked if there were too many programs.  I feel there are more, weaker programs than there are legit, interested players to fill them.  If half the programs disappeared, and you had in-house, that could be great.

[Novos51]

4 hours ago, No Politics said:

All good points.

In regard to the girls, my friend has a daughter who just decided to play hockey last season at 12U.  She is admittedly (and understandably) not very good, and she is moving up to 14U.

I've been looking, and I only found three programs even offering girls hockey at a normal, non-national bound level:  NP, Huskies, and Badgers.  That's a shame.

And the in-house ideas are brilliant.  When I was a kid, sports were just for fun (like in-house).  Like you guys said, when you have competitive travel hockey that takes in kids who belong in in-house, it waters everything down even more, makes it less fun, and forces kids to play at levels they don't want to.

And reasons like that are why I asked if there were too many programs.  I feel there are more, weaker programs than there are legit, interested players to fill them.  If half the programs disappeared, and you had in-house, that could be great.

But then it wouldn’t be travel and parents would thumb their nose at it. Lol

[nemesis8679]

21 minutes ago, Novos51 said:

But then it wouldn’t be travel and parents would thumb their nose at it. Lol

I don't think so,  necessarily. It would be cheaper, less time-consuming, and maybe their kid wouldn't look out of place. Compared to a kid on a travel team, neither are realistically going anywhere other than ending up with a lifelong love of hockey and playing to have fun, if that's what they choose to pursue. 

[dazedandconfused]

It's purely a numbers game for most rinks/programs. These rinks could pull it off but not many more could, if any.

Obviously, RMU and Baierl as they are both doing it already.

Palmer, Printscape/Ice Castle/Lebo - 2 of those 3, UPMC (never would allow the non-elites on the ice),

[HatTrick]

I think there will be more soon.  With the season running from August-April and longer each year there will be parents that decide it's too much and scale it back.  I'm seeing it as a coach less kids coming to practice at 10U and 12U.  It's a waste of time/money to have half the team missing practice.  10U team 3 and lower at most associations should be in-house.

[kid310050]

Talk about too many teams, at the very least Esmark is fielding a B team at the 2011 age.