Jump to content

Teams looking for players! 2023-2024


Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, fafa fohi said:

IMO, yes.  What good does it do?  Typically teams in 14U AA Minor are U13 BY teams and I assume it is only done in this division because it is their first year of checking and allows kids of similar age and size to compete as their intro to checking.

Unless anyone has another valid reason why there is a AA Minor division at only the U14 level?  

Yes that's the reason. The top kids at the first year bantam can play against each other without the kids who have checked for a year. It's like a slow intro to checking with just other kids who haven't checked. Probably more dangerous just like waiting til puberty to introduce checking is. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After watching this tryout season debacle from so many angles and age groups, I have what I think may be a HUGE reason behind the craziness:

A few years ago only a couple organizations -- mainly AAA -- had CLOSED TRYOUTS.  Now everyone closes tryouts, and I think THAT is a large part of the problem (at least at the A-level).

I get the reasoning behind it:  "We don't want to deal with the parents saying 'my Bobby was better than that other kid who was selected!', so let's keep the parents out."

BUT think of it from the other perspective:  If parents can't see in that rink, they are blindly following either the word of an organization that will say anything to keep their kids, or their kid themself (and we know how objective THEY are).  The parents don't know how many players actually tried out, they don't know the skill level of the kids who tried out, and they are always second-guessing themselves. And yes, A-level parents, too.

So no one knows if they are safe, and keep moving on.  Everything is fluid, and parents are glad to eat a commitment fee to ensure their player is on a solid team.

My guess is that there are still a lot of orphans out there, so I agree with the poster who said it may make sense to start a thread for orphan players looking for homes.  I still get contacted (just got two more today) from panicked parents asking me if I knew where their kid could play.

In my opinion, closed tryouts are freaking stupid to the Nth degree.  If you are who you say you are, what do you have to hide?

Edited by No Politics
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, No Politics said:

 

I evaluated a tryout session a couple weeks ago where there were sixteen skaters.  Of those sixteen, I would say five were AA level, four were A Major, and the rest were A Minor.  As I was walking out of the rink, I overheard an administrator telling a group of parents the team looked great, and they would be playing AA.

When do you think those parents will realize they were duped?  When it is way too late to do anything but stew.

In my opinion, closed tryouts are freaking stupid to the Nth degree.  If you are who you say you are, what do you have to hide?

Honestly, the AA team you just described may compete perfectly fine in PAHL. Just not beyond that. It's that diluted. But I hear you. Maybe they won't place in AA.

I don't know about that with closed try outs. Maybe you have a point. But kids seem to relax and play better without parents watching. I have never watched my kid try out, so I don't quite relate to this need. Do you really think a parent who has never played hockey before really needs to be in there to then crap all over the try out process? Parents are truly just awful these days. It's not everyone, but enough made that bed with behavior and are working to have it so that they can't watch games either. I don't have much sympathy on that. These are volunteers you are abusing. Working g on no refs too.

 

  • Like 2
  • 100 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been out of this for a long time, but it seems to me that the faux AAA stuff is also partially in response to there being 6-8 levels of A hockey. I hear "lowly A" a lot, obviously people think their kids are not A level players. I get that you don't want 20-0 blowouts in A, but when you have 6-8 divisions in A, you are probably trying to slice it too thin. I get why they don't have B at older age groups anymore, they think kids will quit instead of playing B. The whole birthyear idea has significantly complicated it too. A long time ago that birthyear idea was only for the high level teams, so I get it. Your team is "better" if it is a birthyear team. But I think a part of the problem is the vast majority of the teams are forced into some flavor of A level hockey. The best A level teams in a lot of cases really are good enough to be AA teams, but because PAHL has to fill up every on of the 6-8 A level brackets, they have to play "lowly A". Then everyone gets angry and creates hybrid and faux teams and makes it worse.

Personally, I think there should not be any birthyear teams permitted at the A level. You should just let more teams into AA, which I know is the opposite of what people here think. If you want to be a birth year team, then you automatically are in AA. I don't care if they deserve to be AA or not. It simplifies the process a little, because you know if you make a birthyear team, you are playing AA. Besides, the birthyear thing is generally a sign that the team is considered more serious, which is another complaint around here. I get that too. If you are more serious about hockey, you want to be on a team of like-minded people. I realize this would mean some bad AA teams will be out there. If they get destroyed every weekend, fine. That's what they asked for. Someone has to be the worst team in every division.

Way back on the "old days", i.e. 90s and 00s (the years, not the birthyears of the kids), B was inexperienced players. A was less serious but better than house level and they played PAHL schedules and 2-4 tournaments a year. AA was where all of the serious players went and they played a lot more games than A. Of course, yes, there was AAA too, some of which was legit, and some was not so much.

On a side note, it is funny to me that the Pittsburgh Stars, now known as Esmark, were originally a "faux" AAA team started by a doctor who found a group of players angry at the Amateur Penguins. The Am Pens are now the Vengeance and probably now they are the "faux" AAA team of those two.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, No Politics said:

A few years ago only a couple organizations -- mainly AAA -- had CLOSED TRYOUTS.  Now everyone closes tryouts, and I think THAT is a large part of the problem (at least at the A-level).

We had open tryouts.   From the bleachers, we had 1/3 open for parents to watch then you could watch from Bubbas at Printscape.

From our perspective, the number of declines brought this team down.   It was a pretty awesome lineup from a very competitive tryout.   We had 11 declines and exhausted the alternate list.   It was just a cascade of events and panic from families that didn't want to be left on a shell of a team.   Our process was coach calling the roster and getting verbal approvals then posting the roster list (pinnie numbers) then they have 48 hours to decline to receive back their commitment fee.   The 48 hr timeframe now seems too long + I like what North Pittsburgh is doing by cashing the commitments on making the roster.   Some joker sent their decline email one minute after the deadline.    We decided to just let it go.  Sad lol.

Edited by bb2j3z
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, No Politics said:

In my opinion, closed tryouts are freaking stupid to the Nth degree.  If you are who you say you are, what do you have to hide?

I follow your argument, but I disagree entirely. It's been my experience that closed tryouts are far better for both the organization and the players. I do not agree with the implication that most organizations are holding closed tryouts to hide the actual potential playing level of the resulting teams from parents. From an org's perspective, you don't have parents yelling at their kids during tryouts, or accosting evaluators during or after tryouts about their kids. From a player's perspective, observing closed tryouts both as a parent and as a coach/evaluator for years has convinced me that most kids play better at tryouts when their parents aren't watching and preparing their withering car coaching speech the whole time. Most parents have no idea how to evaluate their player relative to their peers. That's just a sad fact.

There are many things about how organizations run tryouts that I have issues with, but I am absolutely convinced that the benefits of closed tryouts far outweigh any costs.

Edited by Lifelongbender
  • Like 2
  • 100 3
  • Fist Bump 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, bb2j3z said:

We had open tryouts.   From the bleachers, we had 1/3 open for parents to watch then you could watch from Bubbas at Printscape.

From our perspective, the number of declines brought this team down.   It was a pretty awesome lineup from a very competitive tryout.   We had 11 declines and exhausted the alternate list.   It was just a cascade of events and panic from families that didn't want to be left on a shell of a team.   Our process was coach calling the roster and getting verbal approvals then posting the roster list (pinnie numbers) then they have 48 hours to decline to receive back their commitment fee.   The 48 hr timeframe now seems too long + I like what North Pittsburgh is doing by cashing the commitments on making the roster.   Some joker sent their decline email one minute after the deadline.    We decided to just let it go.  Sad lol.

That sucks, especially since you had the headcount at tryouts to field one or even two teams.

Question - since your tryouts were open to spectators, do you think there was any chance mom or dad got in their kids ear to dissuade them from accepting their spot on the AA team because the parents felt it was not a good fit for their kid or that the grass may be greener elsewhere and the talent was not up to "their" standards?  My gut says "yes" but what do I know.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, bb2j3z said:

We had open tryouts.   From the bleachers, we had 1/3 open for parents to watch then you could watch from Bubbas at Printscape.

From our perspective, the number of declines brought this team down.   It was a pretty awesome lineup from a very competitive tryout.   We had 11 declines and exhausted the alternate list.   It was just a cascade of events and panic from families that didn't want to be left on a shell of a team.   Our process was coach calling the roster and getting verbal approvals then posting the roster list (pinnie numbers) then they have 48 hours to decline to receive back their commitment fee.   The 48 hr timeframe now seems too long + I like what North Pittsburgh is doing by cashing the commitments on making the roster.   Some joker sent their decline email one minute after the deadline.    We decided to just let it go.  Sad lol. lot

Do you know if those 11 declines went together somewhere as a team?  Seems like a really high number!  Did you have your tryouts to early?  I'm starting to agree with the idea that if you are trying out for a AA or AAA team and make it your commitment fee is automatically cashed.  Would save from a lot of kids who are there for the ice time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All good points folks, and totally valid.  

I enjoyed watching tryouts, never once yelled at any of my kids, and never accosted/yelled at any evaluators.  So my take was coming from that perspective.  I totally see where you all are coming from, though, and appreciate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, fafa fohi said:

That sucks, especially since you had the headcount at tryouts to field one or even two teams.

Question - since your tryouts were open to spectators, do you think there was any chance mom or dad got in their kids ear to dissuade them from accepting their spot on the AA team because the parents felt it was not a good fit for their kid or that the grass may be greener elsewhere and the talent was not up to "their" standards?  My gut says "yes" but what do I know.  

My son was at the SPR tryouts and the organization defiantly did not select the best kids for the SPR 18U AA team. Hands down. This is why the other kids declined and moved on. It was not the declines that doomed the team but the talent that was selected.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, qwik_one said:

My son was at the SPR tryouts and the organization defiantly did not select the best kids for the SPR 18U AA team. Hands down. This is why the other kids declined and moved on. It was not the declines that doomed the team but the talent that was selected.

So where did they move on to?  I would think that the core group of that team would have stayed intact!  Did the kids who declined first accept? Something there sounds fishy to me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, fafa fohi said:

That sucks, especially since you had the headcount at tryouts to field one or even two teams.

Question - since your tryouts were open to spectators, do you think there was any chance mom or dad got in their kids ear to dissuade them from accepting their spot on the AA team because the parents felt it was not a good fit for their kid or that the grass may be greener elsewhere and the talent was not up to "their" standards?  My gut says "yes" but what do I know.  

Well at every tryout, we had well behaved parents that didn't interfere with the evaluators.   So thank you for that.   Some board members did want to close off tryouts completely, but they were open last year.   We just made the area smaller to 1/3 of the bleacher this year so evaluators could sit in the middle and watch both ends of the ice equallly.

We had about 5-6 evaluators that were board members (not on the team) + coaches (not on the team) + there was one outside coach.  We just ranked them according to ability and skill.   So the roster was the best players from the tryout essentially.   Sorry I wasn't in the room for the decision process.   I see that there is someone who disagrees with that above.   I've also heard complaints that there was too much turnover from last years team.   Everyone has their own opinion.

It's hard to know what exactly goes behind the scenes with every family.   You'd think at this age level, the kid probably knows more of what they want to do... and the parent just listens to their kid.   Yeah they just want the best for their kid.

Edited by bb2j3z
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, qwik_one said:

My son was at the SPR tryouts and the organization defiantly did not select the best kids for the SPR 18U AA team. Hands down. This is why the other kids declined and moved on. It was not the declines that doomed the team but the talent that was selected.

So where did they move on to? Did they go somewhere as a group? I would think that the core group of that team would have stayed intact!  Did the kids who declined first accept? Something there sounds fishy to me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, hockeyisgreat said:

So where did they move on to? Did they go somewhere as a group? I would think that the core group of that team would have stayed intact!  Did the kids who declined first accept? Something there sounds fishy to me!

Some went to Preds, some to Hornets.  Several still looking. 

SP hasn't had 18u teams the past two season, it should have been clear that the advertised 18u AA team for next season created for the sole purpose of keeping the core of last year's 16uAA team together (approximately 8, or more, of whom had played together for at least 2-3 years).    Presumably, that core was selected.   Sounds like some of the new faces that showed up (e.g., former "AAA" players from 2006 BY that didn't make an 18uAAA team and/or a few 05 and 06 who played on other teams last year) got picked, and realized that it was basically reboot of the 16u AA team with a couple additions - not including all of their friends that they came from other organizations - and decided to find "greener" pastures.  Not sure when the former core players from the 16u AA team jumped ship. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with cashing a commitment check is - what happens when you are the person who wants to play but the rest of the team leaves?  Or it's advertised as AA and the kids who show up are A minor and your kid really is A major or AA?  Lots of issues there.  Raise tryout fees if you want to discourage non serious people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw the comment the parent made above about SP not picking the best players, but I just don't see that happening when picking an 18 AA team. Sure, they might take their returning players when splitting hairs on last few spots. But I have to assume they picked the players who rated the highest for the majority of the roster.

What 18 AA teams still have tryouts or are holding supplementals? I know Mt Lebanon was light at tryouts, but it looks like they filled the roster with their supplemental. We are getting pretty far along in the process and players are running out of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Murray Chadwick said:

Some went to Preds, some to Hornets.  Several still looking. 

SP hasn't had 18u teams the past two season, it should have been clear that the advertised 18u AA team for next season created for the sole purpose of keeping the core of last year's 16uAA team together (approximately 8, or more, of whom had played together for at least 2-3 years).    Presumably, that core was selected.   Sounds like some of the new faces that showed up (e.g., former "AAA" players from 2006 BY that didn't make an 18uAAA team and/or a few 05 and 06 who played on other teams last year) got picked, and realized that it was basically reboot of the 16u AA team with a couple additions - not including all of their friends that they came from other organizations - and decided to find "greener" pastures.  Not sure when the former core players from the 16u AA team jumped ship. 

11 declines sounds like more than a few! From what I am reading it sounds like less than half of the team would have been holdovers and the other half would be new players!  The big problem is when kids tryout and have no intention of playing for that team if picked.  What I still don't understand is why those 11 declined after the phone call from the coach.  Something just doesn't add up.  Is there more to the story? The other thing I don't understand is why they just didn't keep last years team intact!  How many new players did they need?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Spear and Magic Helmet I don't think letting more teams into AA is a great answer. Then you aren't addressing the issue the independent teams complain of with the competition. And it's miserable to play blow out games for the kids, no matter which side of the score sheet you are on. That's terrible if you care about development.

I don't think that is accurate, that the top A team could always be AA. Sometimes a placement was wrong, but more often than not, that team still gets killed by the better AA teams. Remember, AA is diluted. So you are right, that top team may compete with some of the AA teams, but then...where do you draw the line? 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, hockeyisgreat said:

11 declines sounds like more than a few! From what I am reading it sounds like less than half of the team would have been holdovers and the other half would be new players!  The big problem is when kids tryout and have no intention of playing for that team if picked.  What I still don't understand is why those 11 declined after the phone call from the coach.  Something just doesn't add up.  Is there more to the story? The other thing I don't understand is why they just didn't keep last years team intact!  How many new players did they need?

As a longtime former team manager at the AA level, that does seem very odd... I've never heard of that extreme amount of declines, ever.  I think perhaps 1 or 2, but usually at the AA level I've rarely seen more than a very few declines.  From the teams I worked with the acceptance rate was easily over 90% most of the time, which meant maybe 1-2 would decline if that out of a team of 20.

All in all, it is a real shame for the SPR org that this all fell apart and they will need to do some analysis as to what went wrong. 

As a side note, the org that we were most tied to over the years for my son (a 2002 goalie), always had outside evaluators come and evaluate the players.  I always felt that was the one org who truly picked teams on a relatively fair basis from what I could see.  Players weren't permitted to wear the gear of the org while trying out and the evaluators only saw the tryout numbers on their jerseys.  This way it was as "unbiased" as possible, if that is fully possible.  

Of course I would always very closely watch the goalie tryouts and even though some years there would be 10-13 goalies tryout for a certain age level, it was fairly easy to rank the goalies from the top down.  I had no stake in the player choices, but I nearly always was right on the top goalies each year and most of the time my personal rankings would spot on match what the outside evaluators picked for each team.

 

 

Edited by Wes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wes said:

As a longtime former team manager at the AA level, that does seem very odd... I've never heard of that extreme amount of declines, ever.  I think perhaps 1 or 2, but usually at the AA level I've rarely seen more than a very few declines.  From the teams I worked with the acceptance rate was easily over 90% most of the time, which meant maybe 1-2 would decline if that out of a team of 20.

 

As a few people have pointed out, the significant amount of declines is suspect, 1 or 2 is normal, 11 is abnormal. The Rebellion 06 squad was a solid group that had been together for a few seasons. It sounds like about half the team would have been returning players and half new players. That sounds reasonable considering the Rebellion team was on a similar MHR rating level as the Preds "AAA" team and was one of the strongest AA teams south of Pittsburgh. If some of the "AAA" players felt snubbed, that just shows you the entitlement... The Preds "AAA" team would have been the 5th best Tier 2 AA team in Mid-Am last season.

From what I can gather, the majority of the declines appeared to have landed at Mt. Lebo, which had a low turnout for their original tryouts, which were also held the same weekend as the Rebellion tryouts... So the Rebellion went from 50+ kids at tryouts with a strong returning core, to completely folding in a week... While Lebo went from a few returning kids and low numbers at their initial tryouts to swelling with numbers and having a solid team in a week... Something definitely happened behind the scenes to cause such a drastic shift.

  • Holy Moly 1
  • 100 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ThePuckDropsHere said:

As a few people have pointed out, the significant amount of declines is suspect, 1 or 2 is normal, 11 is abnormal. The Rebellion 06 squad was a solid group that had been together for a few seasons. It sounds like about half the team would have been returning players and half new players. That sounds reasonable considering the Rebellion team was on a similar MHR rating level as the Preds "AAA" team and was one of the strongest AA teams south of Pittsburgh. If some of the "AAA" players felt snubbed, that just shows you the entitlement... The Preds "AAA" team would have been the 5th best Tier 2 AA team in Mid-Am last season.

From what I can gather, the majority of the declines appeared to have landed at Mt. Lebo, which had a low turnout for their original tryouts, which were also held the same weekend as the Rebellion tryouts... So the Rebellion went from 50+ kids at tryouts with a strong returning core, to completely folding in a week... While Lebo went from a few returning kids and low numbers at their initial tryouts to swelling with numbers and having a solid team in a week... Something definitely happened behind the scenes to cause such a drastic shift.

Bingo.  And what team does the son of the Rebellion's President play on?  Oh yeah, Lebo.  There is your smoking gun folks explaining the situation.

  • 100 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, nemesis8679 said:

Tryout season has been made way more difficult than it needs to be. 

 

Exactly.  

It's funny that we are all having productive discussions here, with each of us offering suggestions -- right or wrong -- as to what the problem may be.  The more I read, however, the more I feel it's just a combination of everything.  It's not just one reason.

You guys are saying eleven declines is abnormal, but I know of at least three teams that had eight declines or more.  I honestly don't know why.  I agree that you normally see one or two declines on teams.  We are seeing crazy declines, movement like we've never seen, and supplementals after supplementals because of it.

I can say it's sad, though, because it's the good kids and their families who ultimately suffer.

Edited by No Politics
  • Like 4
  • 100 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...