Boraske speaks for all of the boys or is that one person's opinion?

Boraske,

Answer me this: How would you feel about your Ridley team of this past year playing someone's JV team?

The likely answer is that your team wouldn't bother playing a JV team no matter how good that team was. Would that be accurate?

One of the greatest scenarios that I witnessed this past year was the ICSHL playoffs when Malvern's Varsity 1 team was scheduled to play LaSalle's Varsity 2 team, and Malvern wound up sending instead a mixture of their Varsity 2 and JV teams. Now first I've got to say I disagree with what Malvern did. BUT, the very fact that Malvern did that, and by the way did not get punished for doing so, is a good reason to do away with those V2 teams.

crusader,

I think you make a good point about schools only be allowed to field Varsity, JV and Freshmen tems, and that you should pursue this to have it enacted. The only caveat that I would toss in is that 8th graders should be permitted to play Freshman, primarily because I do not think that ANY school has enough 9th graders (at least 13) to field a Freshmen only team.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Sacks:
Boraske speaks for all of the boys or is that one person's opinion?

Matt,
If any school can get the talent to compete at the Varsity level with more than one team why deny the second team the opportunity or push them to a lower level (JV) and have them dominate. If NP didn't lose so many kids to LaSalle they would easily have 2 varsity caliber teams. The top team would be as good as LaSalle or Pine Richland.

By the way Central Bucks does have multiple varsity football, basketball and other teams. They are called East, West and South. Why don't we call West football CB JV Elite?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: fellows,

Gents,

If the goal here is to grow HS hockey and make it better and more competitive, there are a lot of things that need to happen (most have been said already in various topics)

Let's start with making HS hockey follow the "standard set up" of all HS sports. I'll note them and my opinion on the impact.

1. Do Not allow varsity 2 teams. Potentially lower the level of play at AAA (since they feed AAA schools). Which would possibly make it more likely that the top players will tend to stay away and play club.(Jr's AAA club etc) Potentially increase the pool of players for other schools (I strongly disagree).

2. Strict setup Varsity, JV, Freshman, one team each level - no exceptions, no 8th graders on Freshman teams, teams must be pure (just like other sports). There will be few if any freshman teams. How many JV teams that are barely fielding teams now will disappear if they have to be "pure" teams???

3. No playoffs for JV or Freshmen teams. This will chase away players.

4. No breakdown of divisions of JV teams by skill level, it should follow school size/school divisions just like other HS sports. This will further chase away players of weaker JV teams, which in turn will cause more teams to disappear.

5. Middle school teams, same rules as JV. Pure teams, not by skill level. (not as hard a view on this one, but essentially this might kill middle school altogether) 8th graders playing with 5th & 6th graders. Maybe MS A is 7th & 8th and MS B is 5th & 6th, not by talent level.

Of the items mentioned above, I see us losing teams/players (clearly losing JV teams by deleting multiple teams), not gaining. Mainly because the system is set up to lure players by having JV and middle school playoffs,breaking down teams into competitive divisions, and giving players/parents a competitive (and less expensive) alternative to club hockey.

Let's look at High School Hockey by team administration type.

1 How many local teams are fully supported by the school as a sport run by the Athletic Director of the school ???? (does not mean complete financial support) Maybe 10% - 20%????

2. How many teams are run by an organization independent of the AD of the school that is at least recognized by the schools as club teams?? Maybe 50%

3. How many are "club" teams using the schools name, completely independent of the school (not recognized as even a club sport). 25%??? (These are the teams that die away faster once the kids of the parents that start the program leave the program, might not be this high anymore)

If this is the case is it truly as "HS" sport. It's more like a "club" sport in the sense of many of the local colleges, although most of those colleges have more involvement with the programs than the High schools do.

What about the competition for players.

Jr teams, I can count 10 right off the bat (Jr Flyers A & B, Little Flyers A&B, TriState B&C, Minutemen B, Jr Patriot, B,C & C minor) in our own back yard. Most of these allow players to play HS. Each team rosters more players that they can dress, so if each team rosters 24 players, that's 40 players that don't dress on any given game day (and are playing $6,000 a year to do so). Some of those are billeted players, so say 30 are local players. Let's limit the roster size of Jr teams (Ain't going to happen), to put players potentially back into the HS pool.

Midgets, U18, U16 AAA, AA, A etc....how many parents can afford to pay for both (particularly in this economy), how many kids can do both and homework and do other activities. What choice do they make??

For those players whose parents can afford both, How many club players that attend HS don't play for their HS??? Why don't they???
Is it coaching? Play level?? Bad experience playing for Middle School or JV?? Time conflicts?? Is it that the team is not recognized by the school and not treated the same as other HS sports, including the social and stature aspects (Varsity letters etc)? Is the season too long that it interferes with other HS sport seasons??? I've heard all of these as reasons. There has to be several club players per school that can help a varsity team, how do you lure them??? Get two or three of those per school. Another pool of players, I know my brother would just like to get a few of the club players in the HS he coaches to play for their HS team.

I can continue to list issues but I've rambled on way to long already.

The bottom line is this in my opinion.

HS hockey is simply not like other HS sports, trying to force it to do so may simply further push players away from it. What I believe is good is creating one league as is proposed, this will go along way. Putting teams in divisions/levels that separate public and open enrollment schools will be good. Putting teams in alignments similar to other HS sports leagues would help generate interest and lure players by playing traditional rivalries etc. (this does exist somewhat now, could be improved). A split season for HS and Midget teams, this should/could lower costs, limit conflicts and make it more attractive for players to do both. Creating a AAA tier 2 level (as proposed) to allow second varsity and other open enrollment schools that can't compete at AAA.

Finding a way to having more involvement by the schools, recognition by the schools is an absolute necessity. I think this is the number 1 issue - not eliminating second varsity teams for 5 schools.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: ralphy,

whatthepuck,

I'm confused about your statement about Malvern not playing their top team against LaSalle II and not getting punished is a good reason to get rid of Varsity 2 teams. On the same night, Connestoga did the same against Methacton and no punishment was doled out either that I'm aware of, so that was acceptable??? Could it have been that Malvern is consider the torch bearer of the league and Connestoga is coached by a Graves????

quote:

Originally posted by crusader:
matt,

did you see lasalle II play last year ? to put them in a jv league would have been a benefit to no one and flat out ludicrous. to keep them out of flyers cup play serves only one purpose and that is to limit the competition that the other clubs would face. it is the leagues perogitive to do so, but in the end only the kids feel the effect.

To avoid the competetion is the bottom line and I am not shocked that this is the postiton being pushed on by this forum.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: fellows,

Why should the league do these schools with second varsity teams the favor of providing the service of higher competition so that they can continue to feed the machine? I'm all for a league in which the 5 schools which have varsity 2 teams simply play each other. Then they can call it whatever division they would like. Call it Varsity 2, Varsity lite, JV Elite. That could work and make everyone happy. That way all of the Varsity 2 teams are playing against some other teams of similar caliber, without Varsity 1 teams having to do these big school's bidding.

Ralphy,

I absolutely DO NOT advocate that what Conestoga did was right either. It absolutely was not, but that was just a function of a flawed playoff system (Sorry Carl). I was just trying to point out that the Malvern 1 team would not risk their psyche by playing essentially LaSalle's 1st JV team. Too many things could go wrong there. Worst of all would be to lose to the LaSalle 2 team, but even a close game would put a HUGE dent in the reputation of the Malvern organization, particularly just prior to heading into Flyer's Cup competition where it could very likely be that Malvern 1 would play LaSalle 1.

Now a question for everyone: When the coach of a JV team approaches the coach of a varsity team about a game, does that (the game) EVER happen?

One for the V-2 guys: You (if you are a student) or your son is not good enough to make the top varsity team for that school, and you might not make it until you are a senior if at all during your career; if you had to play JV hockey 3 or 4 years, would you still go to that school? I'm sure that some would not. The knowledge that you could still go to a prestigious school like LaSalle or Malvern or St. Joe's and play "Varsity" hockey, even though you are not on the top team appeals to those 2nd, 3rd and 4th liners that could be going to other schools, and it allows these schools to hoarde players until (or if) they are ready to play on the top team. Is that your point Matt?

Matt, obviously I speak for myself, though I think the "let's play when we can" motto is pretty universal throughout high school hockey though maybe I could be mistaken.

Puck, you're right, I wouldn't really want my varsity team playing a JV team. With that said, I'd rather play LaSalle/Malvern/O'hara IIs than Upper Darby I...

I'm not sure what that means to you guys. I know no other sports have Varsity IIs but hockey around here really isn't like any other Varsity sport so... concessions have to be made. If that means some schools get two varsity teams (that are both competitive and able to play at the varsity level) then yea, they should be allowed.

Perfect example was my 10th grade team. Ridley fielded a Varsity AA and Varsity A. Now I don't know if that constitutes a "II" team in your guys' minds but if it does, then I wholeheartedly agree, send that II team to JV Elite as they did pretty poorly in varsity. On the other hand, I don't agree with sending a talented and capable LaSalle II team to JV Elite or barring them from Flyers Cup. I just don't.

Your last paragraph in the post above mine is pretty good. While it may not be fair that LaSalle harbors those players as V2 players when maybe they're good enough to be V1 players at another school, the question that has to be asked is, what do the LaSalle V2 players want? It would be nice if we had one to ask...

Honestly, and don't get me wrong, I loved my four years at Ridley both in the school and on the ice. However, if I could have played LaSalle II for three years and maybe backed up Pyne as a senior, or started only for Varsity II, I would have, and I damn sure wouldn't have wanted to play "JV Elite."

Actually, I mean, I can't say that looking back now (graduation is in 3 weeks and it's tough!) but I think in 9th grade if I had to choose between LaSalle and Ridley V1, I may have chosen LaSalle V2.

I think that's your point, Matt/Puck, but what really is better for the kids? What looks better for college? LaSalle Varsity II or Ridley I? Upper Darby I or Malvern II? Is it fair to the other schools? Probably not. Is it best for the players? I think so.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Boraske33,

ralphy
So if bunch of bright talented kids go to a school that has a lot of hockey talent they shouldn't be allowed to play on a varsity 2 team against other varsity teams because if they win the other teams might look bad? Your argument is based on your own bias that they are not really varsity players. If they were respected like real varsity teams (which based on TALENT they are) then there would be no issue. It's all your mindset on what these teams are and that some how tacking a 2 on their name makes them a lesser team. Again avoiding competetion seems to be the driver here.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: fellows,

I don't have to speak for the whatthepuck, he articulates himself well on here, but he never said or incinuated that LaSalle 2 wasnt talented enough for varsity, that has never been anyone's argument.

The argument is for having a level playing field for all organizations involved and having multiple varsities tilts the playing field in favor of those that have them. It is an unfair advantage.

I see why people are in favor of V2's, I see the benefits. But the benefits are for the five teams that have them and are not in the best interest of the other 100+ teams that potententially lose players to fill out those rosters.

If NP didn't lose so many kids to LaSalle they would easily have 2 varsity caliber teams. The top team would be as good as LaSalle or Pine Richland. -Fellows

Thank you Fellows, you've completely supported my argument. How many of these NP kids would leave NP to play JV at a private school?

matt, you still think that hgp, malvern, sjp and lasalle draw kids from the area simply because of hockey? you really do not understand the difference between the total experience. if there is a hockey reason for kids to choose lasalle over northpenn and other schools, i would say it is the quality of the coaching and the program as a whole. there is simply no comparison. if the local schools want to improve their drawing of talented players maybe they should improve their school support of hockey and the quality of their programs and their coaching to rival people like Ivcic, Gump and Wally.
also, i find it interesting that it is ok for public schools to have several jv and middle school teams. ralphy's point is well spoken , if you want it fair get rid of the duplicity at these levels also.
after all this discussion, it has become crystal clear to me that matt and many others are not as interested in what is best for the boys (see boraske) but are interested in promoting their own interests at the expense of inclusion, opportunity and competetive balsance.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Sacks:
I don't have to speak for the whatthepuck, he articulates himself well on here, but he never said or incinuated that LaSalle 2 wasnt talented enough for varsity, that has never been anyone's argument.

The argument is for having a level playing field for all organizations involved and having multiple varsities tilts the playing field in favor of those that have them. It is an unfair advantage.

I see why people are in favor of V2's, I see the benefits. But the benefits are for the five teams that have them and are not in the best interest of the other 100+ teams that potententially lose players to fill out those rosters.

If NP didn't lose so many kids to LaSalle they would easily have 2 varsity caliber teams. The top team would be as good as LaSalle or Pine Richland. -Fellows

Thank you Fellows, you've completely supported my argument. How many of these NP kids would leave NP to play JV at a private school?

Note I said would have enough players for 2 varsity teams but they would make the second group play JV which would be a waste for those kids. Given the choice of JV at NP with what they have there vs. JV at some of the private schools which have better coaching, more support and a shot at making the AAA team they would still leave.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: fellows,

matt, you still think that hgp, malvern, sjp and lasalle draw kids from the area simply because of hockey?

No, not every kid goes to these school for hockey.

you really do not understand the difference between the total experience. if there is a hockey reason for kids to choose lasalle over northpenn and other schools, i would say it is the quality of the coaching and the program as a whole.

That's fine, and I will agree with you, I've never knocked the program or the coaching...so what is wrong with kids playing JV until they have developed into one of the players that makes the Varsity team?

if the local schools want to improve their drawing of talented players maybe they should improve their school support of hockey and the quality of their programs and their coaching to rival people like Ivcic, Gump and Wally.

Agreed! But again, why do talented players, that are going to LaSalle for the education and the full experience NEED to play varsity hockey? What is so wrong with being a JV hockey player until you've earned the right to be a Varsity player by definition of High School athletics? Someone mentioned competion in an earlier post, what ever happened to the competition between fellow classmates. Top 20 make the varsity team next 20 have to try hard to unseat them or to make the varsity team next year?

i find it interesting that it is ok for public schools to have several jv and middle school teams. ralphy's point is well spoken , if you want it fair get rid of the duplicity at these levels also.

i find it interesting that it is ok for public schools to have several jv and middle school teams. ralphy's point is well spoken , if you want it fair get rid of the duplicity at these levels also.

I havent spoken at all about being in favor of mulitple JV's.

it has become crystal clear to me that matt and many others are not as interested in what is best for the boys (see boraske) but are interested in promoting their own interests at the expense of inclusion, opportunity and competetive balsance.

What are MY own interests?

I'll tell you my own interests.

A level playing field so that every team has the same chance to succeed.

Competitive balance IS EXACTLY what I am looking for. Their is no lack of inclusion or oppurtunity without V2's, every kid will still have the chance of playing hockey. It may just not be for the VARSITY team that he hopes for.

For the record:

I have no affiliation with any hockey program, school, public or Private in all of the Delaware Valley.

I have no affiliation with any of the seven leagues that participate in the Del-Val.

I have no axe to grind with LaSalle, Malvern, Ghost, O'Hara or any of the private / parochial schools or any of the schools that field multiple varsities.

I have a good relationship with the LaSalle staff. Wally, Jack P, coaches Lipski and Haggerty and I get along well, and often just shoot the breeze when we see each other at local rinks. As I do with the O'Hara, HGP, GA, Judge, Malvern (You get the picture) people.

My point is, you call me bias and say I have an agenda. I don't see it that way. I see it that I want HS hockey to be taken seriously by the rest of the hockey world and to do that we need to look and act like other varsity sports. Is V2 the only issue at hand? No, of course not. But it is one that is easily remedied.

The only people on here calling my oppinion bias, are all people involved with LaSalle (Not the program directors or coaching staff) but parents whose kids played on V2 at one time or another.......so I'm the one that's bias?

matt,
your bias is yours no big deal, you have one and i have one that is why we are at different ends of this argument. your concern over competitive balance is unfounded . lasalle v1 won their first state championship in ten years and the lasalle v2 team was good not great and offered good competition for many other teams in the area. to disregard these players and the value they brought to other teams in this area is short sighted.
secondly, no one is asking north penn or the other schools to play against hgp, malvern, lasalle 1 teams, despite having enrollments that match the privates. how does v2 exsistence effect the public teams other than provide quality competition and good rivlaries.
the reputation of high school hockey in this area has nothing to do with the presence of V2 teams. in fact lasalle's victory at meadville states and even at mt.st. charles did little to improve the reputation of this area (see national high school hockey rankings). the issue of respect and quality of play has more to do with the mass exodus of quality players to other areas. this exodus is a result of increased opportunity, better coaching, and better quality programs. that is why high school hockey is struggling.
v2 teams are the least of the problems in this area. the privates have more hockey playing kids because hockey is a "rich" kids sport in this area and many go to private school. yet this fact should not prohibit theses boys from having a quality expereince especially when it serves to improve the overall quality of hockey for many boys.
access, opportunity, competititve balance, good games, rivalry these are what the v2 teams have offered. the down side is np(or another school) won't get one additional player. sounds to me like the system in place now is a win win for all involved except those in power who want trophies in their case over all the aforementioned positives.
if you would like i will give you another reason in private i have no desire to broadcast. take care.