Two things have contributed to the downturn in hockey numbers, the increasing popularity of Lacross and the economy combined with the cost of ice hockey. To equip a mite player and pay club fees is $2000+, play lacross, outfit and pay a club fee (or a township program fee) is probably around $250. To a family struggling to pay a mortgage, where do you steer your child??? The middle class blue collar family used to be able to afford it in the better economy, they can't now.

Crusader, thank you, that was my point exactly, If you can't make HS hockey a competitve alternative to club hockey, fewer players will play HS and remain with their club teams. If you enact all the rules that other HS sports follow, HS hockey will lose teams and players until only a few of the stronger schools that support their programs survive. Other HS sports do not have to compete with non-school programs for players, it's different by it's nature. You need to change the support system for hockey to make it like other sports in order for HS hockey to be like other high school sports. That's not going to happen.

Whatthepuck, if the proposal is to place the V2's in an AAA minor division with the other open-enrollment schools, what difference is it if they are called V2's or not. If the idea of creating the AAA minor division for the open enrollment schools that can't compete at AAA, they are also in essence in a JV league to the AAA major league are they not?? Should we call those teams JV teams??? And I believe in similar to what Boraske and pez have said, kids just want to play competitive hockey, they don't care what they are called. V2 players are "middle of the pack" players for the most part, kids who could be 2nd or 3rd line varsity at most AA or A schools (depending on the strength of that school). Those are the type of kid that didn't choose a school just on the basis of hockey. They come from middle class families who can afford the educational cost and the cost of hockey (hockey is a sport of affluence). If these teams never existed, most of these kids would be there, playing for the club team, a few would still play JV. The attrition rate for these players at LaSalle is that the number of players in any given class that play as freshman is almost halved by the time they are seniors, kids drop off as they realize they aren't getting to the AAA team or find there are too many other things that become more important than hockey. They don't transfer out. Your estimation of an additional 20 players available to other schools is probably closer to 4 or 5 in reality.

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

crusader,

You say you want multiple teams, and I say fine have them, but only that you can have 1 varsity. Historically, the only reason that public schools tried the 2 varsity teams route was to "try to keep up with the Joneses" (or the open enrollment schools). This was particularly the case when open enrollment and public schools directly competed against each other. Though I think what Carl Wood outlined makes alot of sense. No more than 3 teams: Varsity, JV & Freshman (grades 7-9 for arguments sake). Competitiveness for selected teams is not the concern here. It's more about the attempt to bring HS hockey more in line with what is expected from other sports. Your argument is is that it can't be done. Some of us say it can't only if you don't try. You worry about a bad playing experience for some V-2 players on a handful of teams. According to you, they are there for the academic experience, so what's the problem there? Again, I say who needs who? Varsity AA and A teams should now have plenty of other Varsity 1 teams to play against.
If what you say is true and those V-2 players return to their club teams, is that a bad thing? They will just try out the following year. LaSalle will still have a Varsity, JV & Freshman team like everyone else, that is all that is being said.

Look at New Jersey. They should be our model. In reality, PA is lucky that they have already worked out the kinks, and we can follow their lead, even though were about 30 years too late.

None of the things have happened there that people are afraid of in EPA. They have a Varsity, JV and some school have middle school Teams. Several rinks run independent middle school leagues too. Maybe if PA did this, hockey would actually be on par with NJ as far as competition, because right now its not at all. Not much is different between EPA and NJ, so theres no reason their model cant work here, it has to!

They have a split season. No rinks are losing money, and none are selling any less ice then the rinks in PA.

Most schools only have 2 teams. The hockey players that dont make either, likely end up at the local rink playing travel hockey, a higher level then JV B, and therefor may actually become better players for the next season. Kids arent going to quit hockey because they dont make the school's 4th team. Their parents just spent $400 on skates, their not going anywhere.

hgp fan,

Well said.

whatthepuck,

look do what you want, but as you continue to limit teams and limit involvement do not be suprised when the overall numbers of participants drop. the top players in the area will continue to leave the area,( by the way this is the biggest problem in high school hockey in the area and i have yet to hear a good antidote for it), there will be less incoming players and those who can participate at select schools will be prohibited from competing. sounds like a recipe for disaster.
p.s. your attempt at sarcasm regarding " educational reasons" was not missed it was a foolish remark and is not worth anyting more.

quote:

Originally posted by crusader:
whatthepuck,

look do what you want, but as you continue to limit teams and limit involvement do not be suprised when the overall numbers of participants drop. the top players in the area will continue to leave the area,( by the way this is the biggest problem in high school hockey in the area and i have yet to hear a good antidote for it), there will be less incoming players and those who can participate at select schools will be prohibited from competing. sounds like a recipe for disaster.
p.s. your attempt at sarcasm regarding " educational reasons" was not missed it was a foolish remark and is not worth anyting more.

You cant assume something will be a recipe for disaster, if it has worked for the last 30 years right across the river. If you ask me, weve been treading water in PA and living in the stone age, while NJ is doing just about everything right.

Maybe school hockey wont include everyone anymore, but those kids who arent included will still be playing hockey somewhere, so there is a place for everyone.

How will anyone be prohibited from competing anymore then they are now? By having a varsity hockey team, isnt that the nature of the beast? Only the best 15-18 can compete, prohibiting the others anyway.

I agree, too many players leave, way too early. Thats not high school hockey's problem though, its the Atlantic Districts.

So the V2 teams of LaSalle, Malvern and Roman went 13-7-2, 11-9-1 and 9-11-1 respectively in the ICHSL last season. Not bad considering the teams are made up of mostly underclassmen. Also the LaSalle JV AA team finished first in the SHSHL and lost in the Championship game. Again not bad for mostly freshmen and sophomores.

So lets say we made these teams go away and it is true that their crazy parents pull them out and send them back to Public School. Sticking with the Varsity teams that is 60 kids that go back in the system and start bumping kids off the Varsity teams where they live. Which in turns bumps kids off the JV AA then the JV A and then the B team. Now you have bumped 60 kids out of the system. Maybe most will go play travel but some people can't afford travel hockey or have other reasons why that would not be an option. So now you have maybe 30-40 kids you have bumped out and they may or may not come back. Is that what you really want ? To achieve what? So you can say your "like the other sport". Bottom line is your not like other sports for many reasons that have ben hit on previously. Again hockey is not going to be a full varsity sport in any Public HS anytime soon. This is not Mass or Minn. and never will be. The economics of it are prohibitive.

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

fellows,

Your frustration is obvious, and your scenario is exaggerated, but yes displacement of those players from the LaSalle program, as you depict it, would help to strengthen other programs. Is that bad? I don't think so. The JVB programs would lose players by displacement from the bottom as you describe it, but there are still club options for those displaced players nevertheless. Slightly strengthening several programs I think is better overall for HS hockey than a large number being hoarded at one school.

Do you honestly think that the open enrollment schools stand to lose players under the 1 Varsity, 1 JV, 1 Freshman system? I do. Entire teams, no. Most likely you would lose some of the guys making up the V-2 or JVAA teams, wouldn't you agree.

Obviously my example was exaggerated but if the impact is on only 5, 10 or 20 kids there is still is a cause and effect. The question is why do this at all? Is going 1 V 1 JV 1 Freshman going to make the PIAA show up on our doorstep and invite hockey in? If they do many of raphly's other points kick in and a lot more kids get thrown under the bus. Will being proactive really help?. Let's spin it the other way. What is the downside of leaving it alone? The only one I can come up with (and then its only a downside if it's your team being effected) is the theory that Publics will lose some of their better players ( and some who aren't so good) to the Privates because they can play V2. That is what this is really about right?

whatthepuck, if your motivation in eliminating V2 teams is to have the "have-nots" have more players available to them (and that's been the majority of the rationale you have provided), it's not going to produce the effect that you, or Matt, or Ken Haas think. Have you ever spoken to any of these players or parents and ask this of them???
You may get one or two kids that might change their mind about attending any of these schools that have V2 teams. There are certainly kids who make their decision based soley on hockey, and their parents go along with it. Most of those are elite players, not the V2 types. They'll still attend the school, play JV for a year or two, then drop off (many do this now - see my post above). LaSalle has already seen the number of hockey players enrolling drop significantly, for a high of 30+ three years ago to between 10 and 15 the last two classes (class of 2011 & 2012), so there are already alot of "players" going elsewhere. It may take care of itself if the trend continues.

I understand and respect your argument, but if you want to eliminate V2 teams to make hockey comply with the norm, then it should be done all the way (and not let the rest of the irregularities remain), not because there is a misconception that these "hoarded" players on V2 teams will all disperse to other programs if you don't give them a place to play.

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

whatthepuck,

i find your despcription of lasalle as "hoarding" players ludicrous and insulting and your hope that by denying boys a chance to play quality hockey at lasalle you will somehow drive them to your program as wishful thinking. moreover, i find it a lazy solution to a deeper problem simmering beneath the surface at many high school hockey programs.

quote:

Originally posted by ralphy:
whatthepuck, if your motivation in eliminating V2 teams is to have the "have-nots" have more players available to them (and that's been the majority of the rationale you have provided), it's not going to produce the effect that you, or Matt, or Ken Haas think. Have you ever spoken to any of these players or parents and ask this of them???
.

wow!! That ought to spark some e-mail action. Maybe even some midnight phone calls. (its an inside joke)

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

I doubt it, but I'm glad your keeping yourself entertained.

Ralphy,

Yes, I have spoken to players and parents of V-2 teams. I write from experience. I have in fact been a coach of a V-2 team for a couple of years, though not now. Additionally, I have been a coach at another of the schools mentioned that has a V-2 team. I have been a coach at the club level from Mite to Midget as well as the HS level for many years now. I have coached at the HS level in Pittsburgh, so I know something of how things are done out there. I've also coached HS in Connecticut, so I'm familiar with their particular set of circumstances, which came into play in regard to the billeting issue. The long and short of it is that I have seen as well as been a part of firsthand, some of the very issues being discussed here, including the issue of multiple varsity teams. So, in a way you could say that where Matt can claim objectivity because he has no overriding allegiances to any particular party, I have been a party to many of them, and feel that I can give an educated objective opinion.

In my opinion, the general well being of HS hockey lies with healthy and competitive Public school teams, and I do feel that by limiting the number of teams to Varsity, JV and Freshman (7-9), it will help some public as well as some other alternative open-enrollment schools as well. Some (perhaps many) don't have the numbers even to field the three teams mentioned above, but at least then every school would then be on a more even playing ground with regards to numbers, and availability to competition.

I do think that given the fact that a kid who is considering going to a big name school would have to wait perhaps 3 years before he could play at a varsity level competition, some of them will reconsider and go elsewhere. It really will not change the competitive level of the top AAA team, but it will make it more difficult to perhaps retool the varsity. Are there enough of these players coming back to play at say Upper Darby? No. However, it will incrementally raise the overall level of play in the eastern PA area.

Do I think this is the most pressing issue facing HS hockey? Absolutely not. I agree with several people (and have said as much) on this board that have expressed that a harmonious relationship with club hockey is more important. It is also far more difficult and complicated. The issue that is being discussed on this thread is just one that could seemingly be done sooner that later.

Whatthepuck,

Thank you for your insight and input. Under the screen name, it's hard to know the background of the individual you are interacting with sometimes. And I agree with you, the most pressing issue is club/hs and the acceptance of schools to even recognize hockey as a sport (it's hard to recruit players when the school won't even allow a team to post tryout information), these two things will yield far more players to the HS ranks than will dropping 5 varsity 2 teams.

What I see is the continued shrinking of the pool and the number of teams in it. Losing 5 more varsity level teams just shrinks it more and would not make other struggling teams viable in the long run without correcting the other issues. The year before last, 5 teams dropped out (Springfield M, Norristown, ST Pius X Coatesville, Conwell-Egan). This year it's likely Upper Darby will leave the ranks, there are three suburban schools that were heavily senior laden, Hatboro Horsham, Upper Dublin and Upper Moreland. Hatboro-Horsham looks like they'll return, however much weaker, don't know about the other two. Combining into one league takes away the sting, but not the underlying problems.

Again, thanks for listening.

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