Wheeling Is Reeling

[fafa fohi]

Anyone know the reason behind Wheeling Catholic having four forfeits so far this season?  Are they not fielding a team at the A level this year?

[aaaahockey]

1 hour ago, fafa fohi said:

Anyone know the reason behind Wheeling Catholic having four forfeits so far this season?  Are they not fielding a team at the A level this year?

I've heard most of their players play other sports and those sports are being extremely successful in the playoffs so they are not able to get enough kids at the games yet. 

[zam]

This is why single A and it's 25 teams are a joke. There are like 4 good teams. Then there are about 4 teams that would be lucky to win a JV game. They play 500 regular season games and maybe 50 mean anything?!?

[sadday4hockey]

And PIHL, MidAm and USA Hockey laugh all the way to the bank.

And what happens to all this forfeit and other fine money?

Does the rules enforcer get a cut of the the cash like Sammy the Bull?

 

[Happy Hockey Fan]

2 hours ago, sadday4hockey said:

And PIHL, MidAm and USA Hockey laugh all the way to the bank.

And what happens to all this forfeit and other fine money?

Does the rules enforcer get a cut of the the cash like Sammy the Bull?

 

I’d like to know if the schools get their money back from PIHL. Just kidding, I am sure they don’t. People getting ripped off. 

[fafa fohi]

They should take the consistently good teams from A and move them up  - QV, Mars, NC, Moon, Avonworth, CV or a variation thereof.  For the most part, it is the same teams every year that make the playoffs while the same teams are the doormat of both divisions in A.  By moving these schools up will only put more competition in the AA level while making the A level on more equal footing.

[Icebucket]

The top 2 teams in A would likely be in the top 3-4 at AA.  That alone tells you there is a serious imbalance 

[nemesis8679]

"A" has two divisions. What I've seen the past 3 years is that if they took the top 4 or 5 teams from Blue and Gold and put them in one division and the bottom teams in the other, they'd have 2 competitive divisions at A level. But of course that's not what they do. 
 

[nemesis8679]

16 hours ago, fafa fohi said:

They should take the consistently good teams from A and move them up  - QV, Mars, NC, Moon, Avonworth, CV or a variation thereof.  For the most part, it is the same teams every year that make the playoffs while the same teams are the doormat of both divisions in A.  By moving these schools up will only put more competition in the AA level while making the A level on more equal footing.

Instead, they'll keep all those teams at A and make sure to put half in gold and half in blue to beat up on the bottom half of each division and move Shaler (finished 3rd out of 12teams last season) and Wheeling Park (finished 9th out of 12 teams last season) to AA.

 

[kake]

7 hours ago, nemesis8679 said:

Instead, they'll keep all those teams at A and make sure to put half in gold and half in blue to beat up on the bottom half of each division and move Shaler (finished 3rd out of 12teams last season) and Wheeling Park (finished 9th out of 12 teams last season) to AA.

 

Instead they'll move the 5th largest school in the area down to A, I'd love to know how school size is part of the algorithm. Would it be out of line to adopt the PIAA model where the number of male enrollment is factored in? Create another division AAAA and allow schools to petition to move up and set a max male enrollment at each level.

[YardSale]

20 minutes ago, kake said:

Instead they'll move the 5th largest school in the area down to A, I'd love to know how school size is part of the algorithm. Would it be out of line to adopt the PIAA model where the number of male enrollment is factored in? Create another division AAAA and allow schools to petition to move up and set a max male enrollment at each level.

The PIAA model is far from perfect.  Look at the competitive balance issues going on in football right now.

[kake]

48 minutes ago, YardSale said:

The PIAA model is far from perfect.  Look at the competitive balance issues going on in football right now.

No doubt there are issues with all methods. No system will make everyone happy, which is precisely my point. Personally I would prefer a methodology that favors objective data points and is less worried about "competitive balance". There is nothing wrong with struggling and dare I say the word failing. I would 100% prefer my kid play on a team that struggles at the onset and then learns that hard work. perseverance, & friendship are what it is all about,

[Icebucket]

1 hour ago, kake said:

Instead they'll move the 5th largest school in the area down to A, I'd love to know how school size is part of the algorithm. Would it be out of line to adopt the PIAA model where the number of male enrollment is factored in? Create another division AAAA and allow schools to petition to move up and set a max male enrollment at each level.

They do factor enrollment into the formula, but it probably doesn't play a big enough role. The problem with enrollment when it comes to hockey is that it's less about enrollment and more about wealthy enrollment.

In the case of Canon Mac, despite having plenty of capable players their club is a mess. Coaching and management of that club has put them in a free fall from AAA to A in just a few years. But in no way should a school of CMs size and wealth ever be close to being a single A school. Essentially they have been rewarded for mismanagement.

What I can't understand is. why can't they use the amount of USA hockey members each school has? That would give the better figure than just using enrollment alone.

[zam]

2 hours ago, kake said:

Instead they'll move the 5th largest school in the area down to A, I'd love to know how school size is part of the algorithm. Would it be out of line to adopt the PIAA model where the number of male enrollment is factored in? Create another division AAAA and allow schools to petition to move up and set a max male enrollment at each level.

You can see the formula and data used right here. https://www.pihlhockey.com/competition

Much of the problem is they use this algorithm instead of common sense.  Mars, larger enrollment, and historically more successful than many AAA teams, stays in A because they had a bad record 4 years ago. 

[HatTrick]

1 hour ago, Icebucket said:

What I can't understand is. why can't they use the amount of USA hockey members each school has? That would give the better figure than just using enrollment alone.

That is the best idea to date.  Schools are not going to get 5 new players to join their varsity team that have never played before.  The rest of the school population doesn't matter it should be based on population that has a chance of playing hockey because they have been playing.

[Pa Hockey]

Here's a thought using USA Hockey Registered Players 

 

Tier 1 Varsity AAA - 35 - 50 + Players Grades 9-12 with JV and Varsity 

Tier 2 Varsity AA - 35 or Less Players Grades 9-12 with JV and Varsity

Tier 3 Varsity A - 25 or Less Players Grades 9-12 with NO JV and Varsity

Also:

Tier 3 would have A and B Divisions with 8 -12 Total Schools in Playoffs(More teams from A Division)

D-2 that have JV and Varsity Should become Pure in A and B Division in Class A if they can field a pure team

This Matrix would be reviewed Annually and Schools placed accordingly

 

 

[Icebucket]

49 minutes ago, Pa Hockey said:

Here's a thought using USA Hockey Registered Players 

 

Tier 1 Varsity AAA - 35 - 50 + Players Grades 9-12 with JV and Varsity 

Tier 2 Varsity AA - 35 or Less Players Grades 9-12 with JV and Varsity

Tier 3 Varsity A - 25 or Less Players Grades 9-12 with NO JV and Varsity

Also:

Tier 3 would have A and B Divisions with 8 -12 Total Schools in Playoffs(More teams from A Division)

D-2 that have JV and Varsity Should become Pure in A and B Division in Class A if they can field a pure team

This Matrix would be reviewed Annually and Schools placed accordingly

 

 

I have to think this would be pretty easy to do.  Worst case if they think it's too hard to do early in the year, just use last years 8th through 11th numbers.

Edited November 6, 2025 by Icebucket

[carroll81]

1 hour ago, Pa Hockey said:

Here's a thought using USA Hockey Registered Players 

 

Tier 1 Varsity AAA - 35 - 50 + Players Grades 9-12 with JV and Varsity 

Tier 2 Varsity AA - 35 or Less Players Grades 9-12 with JV and Varsity

Tier 3 Varsity A - 25 or Less Players Grades 9-12 with NO JV and Varsity

Also:

Tier 3 would have A and B Divisions with 8 -12 Total Schools in Playoffs(More teams from A Division)

D-2 that have JV and Varsity Should become Pure in A and B Division in Class A if they can field a pure team

This Matrix would be reviewed Annually and Schools placed accordingly

 

 

Interesting start.  How would you account for schools with no boundary?  All automatically AAA?

[Pa Hockey]

2 hours ago, Icebucket said:

I have to think this would be pretty easy to do.  Worst case if they think it's too hard to do early in the year, just use last years 8th through 11th numbers.

I have a plan and presentation on how this would work that is simple to track and implement and verified by rosters and registrars.  L:ast years 8th through 11th numbers set the table for the subsequent years all the way down to Middle School. . Coaches and others I have shared this with love it, AND theres another element that will really enhance it TBA.

Will they listen ?

 

Edited November 6, 2025 by Pa Hockey

[nemesis8679]

On 11/6/2025 at 1:07 PM, zam said:

You can see the formula and data used right here. https://www.pihlhockey.com/competition

Much of the problem is they use this algorithm instead of common sense.  Mars, larger enrollment, and historically more successful than many AAA teams, stays in A because they had a bad record 4 years ago. 

I'm no math expert. But it seems to me that having the A divisions be so top heavy for a few teams would  skew winning percentages for those "top" 3 or 4 teams each division has. And the bottom teams. If you had the top 4 or 5 teams from Gold in a division with the top 4 or 5 from Blue and the bottom teams doing the same, winning percentages would look very different for a lot of those teams. When the top teams play at least half of their games against teams they have no business playing, and the same for those lower teams, W% is not an accurate measure when differences in so many games are 4 goals or more. Come to think of it, no mention at all of goal differential being any consideration. A one or two goal game is way different of a win than a differential of 5 or 6. And a lot of those A teams win and lose with big differentials like that several times during the season. That right there tells you something is wrong.

It would be very rare for a team go jump from AAA to A and vice versa. If they could do better with A, it would help AA as well and in turn, even AAA. As far as where there should be movement between those divisions, too because AA would be adding and subtracting teams. The disparity in AA and AAA isn't so egregious.

I hope I said that in a way that makes sense.

[twoboys]

On 11/6/2025 at 2:15 PM, Pa Hockey said:

Here's a thought using USA Hockey Registered Players 

 

Tier 1 Varsity AAA - 35 - 50 + Players Grades 9-12 with JV and Varsity 

Tier 2 Varsity AA - 35 or Less Players Grades 9-12 with JV and Varsity

Tier 3 Varsity A - 25 or Less Players Grades 9-12 with NO JV and Varsity

Also:

Tier 3 would have A and B Divisions with 8 -12 Total Schools in Playoffs(More teams from A Division)

D-2 that have JV and Varsity Should become Pure in A and B Division in Class A if they can field a pure team

This Matrix would be reviewed Annually and Schools placed accordingly

 

 

The problem is that not every player registered with USA hockey plays school hockey.  And the players that don't play hockey are usually the difference makers.  Imagine if South Fayette  had their forward who is at the Pens?  What about the forward who isn't playing for PT?  He was their best player last year. 

I have said it before, freshman rarely contribute to the varsity team.  So, they shouldn't be a factor at all.  

[Happy Hockey Fan]

4 hours ago, twoboys said:

The problem is that not every player registered with USA hockey plays school hockey.  And the players that don't play hockey are usually the difference makers.  Imagine if South Fayette  had their forward who is at the Pens?  What about the forward who isn't playing for PT?  He was their best player last year. 

I have said it before, freshman rarely contribute to the varsity team.  So, they shouldn't be a factor at all.  

The number of players that play amateur and not high school is small. You are correct in that it usually very good player, but the number of kids is not very high. And would not have much effect on the percentages. 

And they need to be counted in case they decide to play in December because they want to play with their friends. 

Edited November 10, 2025 by Happy Hockey Fan

[Spear and Magic Helmet]

I will say it is true that not every USA Hockey registered player plays high school hockey. However, it is a much better metric than just school enrollment. It shouldn't be the only criteria, but it is an idea that has a lot of merit because it is easily measurable. 

[kake]

IMO the issue isn't at all about competitiveness; it's all about the kids and what is best for them. Hockey is an insanely tough sport to play, and the hard work it takes to go from "Learn To Skate" to playing on a contender for the Pens Cup team is enough. Sports done right can lead to a more successful and happy approach to life. Friends and teammates you would do anything for. You appreciate the victories so much more after the painful losses. Woke Parents have ruined youth sports enough as it is, turning their kids into victims by always making excuses for why the lost, and handing out participation trophies to everyone, If we focus solely on competitiveness, in order to make the most people happy, then we take all that is good about sports. Why don't we just not allow Seneca Valley to play this year because they have too many good players who work hard, which causes the University of NA to not have any fun this year( or maybe move UNA down to AA).

[zam]

5 hours ago, Spear and Magic Helmet said:

I will say it is true that not every USA Hockey registered player plays high school hockey. However, it is a much better metric than just school enrollment. It shouldn't be the only criteria, but it is an idea that has a lot of merit because it is easily measurable. 

Not sure how "easily measured" it would be anyway. USA hockey doesn't have any idea of what school their registered players goes to. And I would doubt that they would just give an entire list of registered players from Western PA over to PIHL. And even if they did, is someone at PIHL going to go thru the list of addresses, find out what school district they live in, and then confirm that the kid actually goes to that school and not a private school or cyber??

Or is it going to be up to each organization to do a survey of all the players in their schools and turn it into PIHL yearly? The competency of most of these hockey boards is questionable at best, you think they can me expected to research those kids that don't play school hockey?