Bantam AA 16/17

[HockeyPop2297]

To sum it up: PDR is basically a decoy "supposedly" established to force clubs to develop their own players? But is actually a "non-compete" to prevent coaches from taking players they develop to other teams? So although parents pay the cost of this development, we face limitations as to what team we want to spend that money on. Unless we don't care in what division they play? Imagine a youth sport where parents would have freedom of choice...oops, guess that's what inhouse hockey is for! Once at the Tier level, the coach that's been with the players for years was only good at developing players while the coach belonged to the club. If they go elsewhere... their history of development is no longer valid. How ridiculous. Let there be no doubt, youth hockey clubs are more about business then player development... other than for retaining the revenue from us!

[Puck Yeah]

This is only a symptom of our society at large.  See something you don't like happening? pass a  regulation.  That regulations begets 3 more unanticipated problems so pass 3 more regulations to try and rein that in.  Then you need more regulations to get the folks that get around those regulations.  Welcome to the new America.  Freedom has been traded in for safely and regulation.  Here is your participation trophy.

[BBelieber]

Let's not forget that this Wave coach was one of the coaches allegedly fired from the Ice Dogs last season for shopping teams. This seems to be a fair application of the PDR rule based on the history of this team's coach. Unfortunately, to punish those who don't follow the rules or act in an ethical manner ultimately ends up punishing others.

While I have no dog (sorry) in this hunt, you have the order backwards: Dogs coach was "fired," and only then did he look elsewhere.  He was not fired because he tried to shop the team around.  But PDR still applies. 

[Face Wash]

Whay was he fired?

[Handboni]

To sum it up: PDR is basically a decoy "supposedly" established to force clubs to develop their own players? But is actually a "non-compete" to prevent coaches from taking players they develop to other teams? So although parents pay the cost of this development, we face limitations as to what team we want to spend that money on. Unless we don't care in what division they play? Imagine a youth sport where parents would have freedom of choice...oops, guess that's what inhouse hockey is for! Once at the Tier level, the coach that's been with the players for years was only good at developing players while the coach belonged to the club. If they go elsewhere... their history of development is no longer valid. How ridiculous. Let there be no doubt, youth hockey clubs are more about business then player development... other than for retaining the revenue from us!

Telling it like it is!

[MO-ICETIME]

Let's not forget that this Wave coach was one of the coaches allegedly fired from the Ice Dogs last season for shopping teams. This seems to be a fair application of the PDR rule based on the history of this team's coach. Unfortunately, to punish those who don't follow the rules or act in an ethical manner ultimately ends up punishing others.

While I have no dog (sorry) in this hunt, you have the order backwards: Dogs coach was "fired," and only then did he look elsewhere.  He was not fired because he tried to shop the team around.  But PDR still applies.

No dog in the race either, but i was hearing of the shopping around during the end of the season as in the season was still going on. Again, it's just what I heard so the truth has to be somewhere in the middle? LOL!

[BBelieber]

No dog in the race either, but i was hearing of the shopping around during the end of the season as in the season was still going on. Again, it's just what I heard so the truth has to be somewhere in the middle? LOL!

Correct, but the "firing" occurred before the end of the season, and before the "shopping."  Coach is a good guy.  Personality differences caused the divorce, nothing more.   [/gossip]   

[trans4761]

To sum it up: PDR is basically a decoy "supposedly" established to force clubs to develop their own players? But is actually a "non-compete" to prevent coaches from taking players they develop to other teams? So although parents pay the cost of this development, we face limitations as to what team we want to spend that money on. Unless we don't care in what division they play? Imagine a youth sport where parents would have freedom of choice...oops, guess that's what inhouse hockey is for! Once at the Tier level, the coach that's been with the players for years was only good at developing players while the coach belonged to the club. If they go elsewhere... their history of development is no longer valid. How ridiculous. Let there be no doubt, youth hockey clubs are more about business then player development... other than for retaining the revenue from us!

From my understanding, it came down to the jds getting butt hurt that a majority of their PWAA team jumped ship to follow their coach to the Wave. Upset their boyfiend found a better looking chick after leaving his things on the front porch. Because of that the rest of the Bantam A team's are going to get crushed.

[Hockey05]

I don't know the details but why did it take this long to figure out the PDR rule had been broken?  If that is the case then parents and players were done a disservice. 
Last year we read the Riptide dilemma by other teams and how good they were.  This team sounds like it is even better if allowed in the playoffs. 
Maybe that team should play three fourths of the SCAHA games in order to travel.  Will they be fined by SCAHA for games missed?  Maybe they will commit to travel tournaments and other scrimmages. 

[goaliedad19]

I heard early on the parents were aware after tryouts, but the thought was only that they would not be eligible for caha playoffs. The subsequent change to make scaha games count probably altered the situation.

[Northland]

To sum it up: PDR is basically a decoy "supposedly" established to force clubs to develop their own players? But is actually a "non-compete" to prevent coaches from taking players they develop to other teams? So although parents pay the cost of this development, we face limitations as to what team we want to spend that money on. Unless we don't care in what division they play? Imagine a youth sport where parents would have freedom of choice...oops, guess that's what inhouse hockey is for! Once at the Tier level, the coach that's been with the players for years was only good at developing players while the coach belonged to the club. If they go elsewhere... their history of development is no longer valid. How ridiculous. Let there be no doubt, youth hockey clubs are more about business then player development... other than for retaining the revenue from us!

From my understanding, it came down to the jds getting butt hurt that a majority of their PWAA team jumped ship to follow their coach to the Wave. Upset their boyfiend found a better looking chick after leaving his things on the front porch. Because of that the rest of the Bantam A team's are going to get crushed.

Trans, man you nailed that and the part about their BF finding a better looking chick.  Classic!

[Pistonkev]

So can someone confirm that we only have two pre season games now? What's going on with that? Were just keep losing games.

[Teemu8]

So can someone confirm that we only have two pre season games now? What's going on with that? Were just keep losing games.

Schedule has 5 pre-season games

[Teemu8]

Bantam A schedule has 5.... not sure of AA

[MO-ICETIME]

Bantam A schedule has 5.... not sure of AA

All A/B teams have 5 preseason games from Squirt to Bantam. Can't speak to Teir...