Jump to content

PPE Black Eliminated 06-08


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, miked said:

i don't understand this, are you saying that there must certainly be some type of political unfairness because a child that at one point played low level PAHL could never progress enough to deserve a spot on a high level team? 

Born yesterday ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The King said:

There you go. Just curious but the Black Teams we’re independent correct? They’re billed as Tier 1 based off of what I read here. So the higher cost is based off of extensive travel I assume? I’m curious as to what the breakdown is for the fees. Coaches must make a mint. Because the base fee is going to be fixed costs like ice time, jerseys, league fees and coaches stipends. But the independents don’t have the ability to control travel costs. They will  be traveling more not being in a league.  These fees can also be budgeted to fund teams above them. I’m just curious which of these it was. Maybe all?

When my son was there the black teams played in the tier 1 elite league, the elite team played a independent schedule. The reason for this (we were told) was so we didn’t have to play any teams ranked below 20.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, miked said:

i don't understand this, are you saying that there must certainly be some type of political unfairness because a child that at one point played low level PAHL could never progress enough to deserve a spot on a high level team? 

Believe me, it isn't just political influence but paying the bills.

Both Pens Elite Girls and the Selects have had a history of rostering girls at 10U and 12U that played A- or B level in PAHL.  Must really mess with a kid's head when they are elite in one realm and bottom of the barrel on their other team.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, The King said:

What is it with all the focus on girls hockey in the region? Not saying it’s right or wrong but is the demand that great? I haven’t looked at WPA registration numbers but has the number of women’s players jumped that much to necessitate it? Good for them if it has but I bet a lot of this has to do with the culture. I’m sure the PPE focus is about the “celebrity” kids there but elsewhere I am willing to bet that it’s a way to make money and/or the SafeSport legislation is going to start making coed sports less desirable. Just my opinion  

Yes, there are a good number of female players in the Pittsburgh area, especially at the U12 and U10 ages. PAHL, the Penguins, and USAHockey are all pushing to expand girls hockey. Personally I think this is a good thing, but YMMV.

So here's the thing about the Pens Elite move. Virtually all the girls play co-ed hockey up through U12. Girls do tend to drop out more than boys do at all ages, but what happens at U14 is body checking. While I think it's a large minority, there are many girls who, either because of their own preference or the preference of their parents (and man, both are common), decide not to play co-ed hockey at the U14 (bantam) level and above due to body checking. Remember that body checking - as opposed to body contact - is not permitted in girls' or womens' hockey AT ANY LEVEL, INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL. A number of PAHL organizations are making efforts to develop more robust girls-only programs to give these girls a place to play if they choose to stop playing at U14. But in order to accomplish this in an effective way, it's important to have solid programs for the U10 and U12 levels as well. Some girls look forward to the competition and excitement of full-on body checking hockey (although the truth is that introducing delayed offsides makes a bigger difference than body checking at the bantam level - for the love of Pete why not introduce delayed offsides earlier?), but at least a large minority do not want to play against boys in full-on body checking.

Now the Pens Elite are offering full-time teams for girls at all ages. They have the resources, like ice time and coaching staff, and the roster of players, to do so. Most PAHL organizations are not going to be able to field full-time girls' teams at levels below U14 because their girls are playing and want to play co-ed at this age level, and even at the U14 level there are plenty of girls who continue to play co-ed, which makes offering a full-time team even at that level tenuous for most organizations. But the Pens can do it, and for the reasons above it's in their perceived interests to do so.

Regarding the statements @The King made about SafeSport, there's probably some truth to this. There are few rinks in the area that are equipped to handle more than two or three girls in a girls' locker room at a time. Any U14 or above game that features just one girl on each of the two teams is going to have trouble finding separate facilities for their female players to get ready in, because most of our local rinks have girls' locker rooms so small that two bantam or midget-aged players can't get dressed in them together. This is certainly true of all of the former Bladerunners facilities. This situation does come up, by the way.

Obviously there is a huge difference between a Pens Elite-type program and the typical PAHL organization program, but these underlying justifications for these moves are still largely the same.

Regarding money as a motive for this, I don't see it, though I am certain that there are going to be a number of responses that use a bunch of dollar signs to make that allegation. For a host of reasons, it would be a much less risky way to make money at the U14 level to offer more teams for male players. It strikes me as a gambit in their drive to increase girls participation in hockey at every level. I predict that some of the PAHL organizations in the region will try to follow suit if the Pens Elite programs work out and offer full-time girls teams for PAHL play, instead of the current model that is for part-time girls teams pretty much everywhere.

I could continue to write here about how the Pens Elite and other similar organizations have also damaged girls' hockey in the region, but that's a topic for another time. This move was inevitable, really. Hopefully the Pens Elite doing this will entice girls to keep playing at older ages, and enable the local organizations to build complete teams for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HereWithPopcorn said:

Both Pens Elite Girls and the Selects have had a history of rostering girls at 10U and 12U that played A- or B level in PAHL.  Must really mess with a kid's head when they are elite in one realm and bottom of the barrel on their other team.

This is the edge of what I was referring to about how these organizations have damaged girls' hockey in the region. Well said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to back up what Lifelongbender said above, there has been a MASSIVE push within PAHL over the past 3+ years to develop and establish more girls teams within the member programs.  My understanding was that this year they were duel rostered on both the "boys" team and the "girls" team, the push for next year is that the girls teams go to a "full season" of 20 or so games and that they are only rostered on one team.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: another team that might pop up to fill the void, I really don't think so. I still believe many parents (and maybe their kids too) pick pens for the jersey and the bragging rights. Another team wouldn't fill that void -  might as well play PAHL if you aren't a penguin. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m going to make this clear, I’m tired of talking about woman’s hockey. All you have to do is look at the prominent names in local hockey, you will soon realize they all have girls that play hockey. Do think the local d1 coach likes sending his daughter to Cleveland to play hockey ? You have a NHL linesman who’s going to coach his daughter. I said there is a new generation with the pro team, it seems nobody picked up on this comment. The worse hockey dad in Pittsburgh that runs the place has daughters. So y’all can stop speculating. Those are all facts! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, aaaahockey said:

Re: another team that might pop up to fill the void, I really don't think so. I still believe many parents (and maybe their kids too) pick pens for the jersey and the bragging rights. Another team wouldn't fill that void -  might as well play PAHL if you aren't a penguin. 

I’d bet the Icemen expand to the younger age groups based on this news. Those displaced won’t have to go back to PAHL and can still can be AAA/AA (in name - I’m not speaking to skill level).

Edited by Ynot02
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, sadday4hockey said:

Both of those rules force Coaches to teach their players how to make a play WITH THE PUCK on their stick instead of teaching them how to get rid of the puck for absolutely no reason. And by the way, what the hell do either of those posts have to do with this thread? SMFH

She responds to an off topic post with her own off topic retort and then criticizes for going off topic.  sMfh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Danner27 said:

I’m going to make this clear, I’m tired of talking about woman’s hockey. All you have to do is look at the prominent names in local hockey, you will soon realize they all have girls that play hockey. Do think the local d1 coach likes sending his daughter to Cleveland to play hockey ? You have a NHL linesman who’s going to coach his daughter. I said there is a new generation with the pro team, it seems nobody picked up on this comment. The worse hockey dad in Pittsburgh that runs the place has daughters. So y’all can stop speculating. Those are all facts! 

Running your mouth again I see!  With ZERO clue.  First off, the daughter you are talking about, her dad is NOT an NHL linesman, he is the head of officiating for the entire NHL genius.  His daughter happens to be a very good hockey player and even better person!  You obviously don't know this dad, because he is only coaching to help and grow the sport, which is a great thing!   He has no hidden agenda and isn't playing any favorites! 

Save me your BS response about how your the smartest in the room and we are all clueless!  It's obvious your the clueless one and have no insight to any of this!  Growing the girls game is good for everyone.  Period.  You talk about the "WORSE" hockey dad of them all, you do realize that NONE of his daughters care about or even are playing hockey.  Onw takes lessons.  Of course you do because you know everything!!  You know nothing!  YOU. ARE. A. JOKE! enough is enough! Not only are you a joke, but your the worlds biggest cry baby when things don't go the way you think they should go, and the same person that thinks everyone should get a trophy.  Not only are you a joke, your pathetic!  Get a life pal!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, RegDunlop7 said:

Lol the asinine rules imposed by USA Hockey in recent years (i.e., no checking/delayed offsides until 14U, no icing on PKs until 16U, etc.) only enables the Canadians and Europeans to continue producing better players.

What is your definition of "better players"...  The percentage of Canadian born NHL players as dropped significantly since the 1980's when over 70% of the league was Canadian.  I'm not a huge supporter of USA Hockey's ADM development system, there has been a larger number of US born players taken in the 1st round of the NHL Draft in recent years, and the US players being drafted are coming out of ADM.  Considering the majority of NHL teams traditionally select "the best available player" at the draft I think there's a good argument to be made that right now USA Hockey and European countries (especially Scandinavian countries) are producing "better players".  This is especially true if you take into account participation levels in the US and Europe vs. Canada.  You can dislike the rule changes all you want (I particularly dislike the change in the offsides rule), but to say that those rule changes are putting US born players at a disadvantage developmentally is fundamentally wrong.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We did start to go way off topic and when I read my first post, I don't want it interpreted that I don't care about girls hockey. Actually I think it's awesome they are growing the game and I think the black teams were and are a joke too begin with so good riddance. I do hope the girls teams don't detract from growing the game within PAHL but its kind of silly we are comparing older girls to boys in the level of PAHL they play. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, aaaahockey said:

We did start to go way off topic and when I read my first post, I don't want it interpreted that I don't care about girls hockey. Actually I think it's awesome they are growing the game and I think the black teams were and are a joke too begin with so good riddance. I do hope the girls teams don't detract from growing the game within PAHL but its kind of silly we are comparing older girls to boys in the level of PAHL they play. 

Basically all this change is doing is two things.  

1. It is shifting the Black team joke from boys to girls.  (we said all along that the Black team kids should be in PAHL AA, well how far down should these girls be in PAHL that make the female black team?

2. It is absolutely taking Girls out of PAHL which will hurt the growth PAHL has been trying to accomplish in Girls divisions.  At 10U and 12U, girls could previously play on the Pens Elite, and then also dual roster for a PAHL Girls and co-ed team.  Now that the Pens are making it full time, these girls will have to decide which way to go from a girls team perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, HereWithPopcorn said:

2. It is absolutely taking Girls out of PAHL which will hurt the growth PAHL has been trying to accomplish in Girls divisions.  At 10U and 12U, girls could previously play on the Pens Elite, and then also dual roster for a PAHL Girls and co-ed team.  Now that the Pens are making it full time, these girls will have to decide which way to go from a girls team perspective.

This.

And this doesn't even mention the effect they have on costs for girls who hope to be able to play somewhat seriously, but who don't want to/can't play co-ed at U14.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, sadday4hockey said:

You're both clueless. Both of those rules force Coaches to teach their players how to make a play WITH THE PUCK on their stick instead of teaching them how to get rid of the puck for absolutely no reason. And by the way, what the hell do either of those posts have to do with this thread? SMFH

There was a reasoned discussion (and I know how unlikely that sounds) on the topic of icing on the PK on the board last January (2019). You can find that discussion by looking for a thread called "PAHL Rule Question".

I'm sorry, though. I just don't see how eliminating the delayed offsides makes anything better for the players, or gives them any more chances to "make a play WITH THE PUCK on their stick". I honestly don't get how that improves either the quality of the game or the learning experience for the player. It means that when a player fails to hold the blue line but quickly collects the puck, they have little choice but to skate back towards their own zone under pressure or cause an offsides if the D2D pass is well defended. That's just not how hockey is played, nor would that be an improvement for adults. There's an argument that eliminating free icing for the PK would be a good thing for the game. No such argument exists for eliminating delayed offsides.

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...