Does anybody else see the new jv AAA league as an excuse for teams to sandbag for the chance at another championship?

Most of these teams played in a JV league last year, so the possibility of sandbagging to win a championship allready exsisted. This doesnt change or add to that possibility in any way does it?

Correct me if I'm wrong or out of line for saying this but...why create a league if you know that teams are going to "sandbag"?

I didnt say anything about "knowing" that teams are going to sandbag. I said the possibilty existed last year and it still exists. It also exists in public league JV divisions. Sorry if I'm out of line but I dont really understand the point you're trying to make???

Crank, not really sure what teams you're talking about, 5 of the 8 teams were V2 teams last year, they had no option but to move to JVAAA. I'm sure most of them would still like to be playing Varsity level competition.

Besides, it's easy to get rid of any potential sandbagging, get rid of JV playoffs (like all other HS sports) and have JV be what it should be, the prep level for Varsity.

quote:

Originally posted by ralphy:
Crank, not really sure what teams you're talking about, 5 of the 8 teams were V2 teams last year, they had no option but to move to JVAAA. I'm sure most of them would still like to be playing Varsity level competition.

Besides, it's easy to get rid of any potential sandbagging, get rid of JV playoffs (like all other HS sports) and have JV be what it should be, the prep level for Varsity.

That would be logical, consistent and non hypocritical so therefore is not going to happen. Does not serve the right people's self interest.

I am all for doing away with JV playoffs.

JV is meant to develop players not for winning championships.

matt,

just to throw a little jab. if all you were worried about was player development, then allowing programs to have multiple varsities would support your goal by allowing kids to play to the level of competition commensurate with their ability. i understand we are going nowhere with this discussion, however,i could not pass on the opportunity to point out the inconsistency in the arguement.

I guess this topic is a bit of a lost cause and most likely a waste of everybody's time but ralphy said exactly what I was looking for...the end of JV playoffs

Again with putting words in my mouth.....when did I ever say "All I am worried about is player development"?

Ralphy, It's called a level playing field.....develop your players at the JV level just like everyone else.....It's very consistant.

Why should you have the advantage of developing your players at the varsity level? You don't see that as an advantage?

The primary goal of everybody involved should be what is best for the kids playing the sport. Not what makes certain people feel the best about themselves, the team they support or their personal agenda. Unfortunately, it appears that too many people have lost sight of this. How does ending JV playoffs help the kids involved? The answer is that it doesn't. Hockey is not a funded sport at most schools...it is barely even recognized at some. The kids pay a lot of money to play because they enjoy it. Many of them work jobs to pay for it themselves. So, what right does anybody have to say they should not have some kind of playoff because other JV sports don't? It's an apples to oranges comparison. Plus, who really cares what other high school sports do? Are they perfect? No, they aren't. Hockey has always been different and, frankly, it's better because of it.

Stopping the varsity II was never about doing what was right for the kids. It was always mostly about trying to stop kids from going to the privates. Also there is some romatic notion of how the JV/Varsity system should work "like the other sports" but as hockey16 said hockey is not like the other sports, never will be.

Matt, not sure why you are directing the level playing field remark to me - was that meant for crusader's comment?????

I understand all the arguments here, I've put forth my opinion ad-nauseum about this subject. And as I said before I'm OK with one varsity if high school hockey is treated like all other sports and all rules apply across the board. There are purists that aim for that goal, but I agree with Keyser, that wasn't the underlying reason why V2's were eliminated, and by your remark you somewhat agree with that by mentioning "the level playing field". And I completely understand and respect your opinion in that regard. But I further stand by my statement that elimination of V2's really won't level the playing field as people think (thinking that more players will go to other schools), parents in this economy aren't plunking down $15K or more for SJP, LaSalle and MP for the reason their kid can play varsity hockey on a V2 team. With hockey being a "money" driven sport (you need money to play), families of hockey players will still send their kids to these schools, there will be just fewer of them playing for their school if the level is not competitive.

Reality is that second (and multiple) varsities were created by the leagues in the first place. Just look at two years ago when SHSHL strongly recommended that LaSalle's 4th team play varsity after the year before, LaSalle's 4th team beat the team coached by the SHSHL commissioner for the JVAA championship. The underlying reason was he and the league was tired of LaSalle's 2nd, third and fourth teams beating their league teams. Isn't that how the first and other V2's came into being in the first place - to create a competitive environment for all teams (moving teams to a higher level for the benefit of the lower level)????? So kids would want to play for their school in a competitive environment????

Hockey16, I completely agree with you, HS hockey is not like any other sport, try and make it like it and kids won't play, teams fold, leagues don't collect fees, rinks don't sell ice etc etc. It's understood by the people that run the leagues, so JV playoffs (that in addition fills more ice in March when club teams are done), will continue. JV teams will continue to be allowed to be impure, otherwise some JV teams couldn't exist (again, fees, ice). If JV teams cease to exist for some teams, eventually this will affect the ability to field varsity teams as well, they will cease to exist too. That's reality.

Reality is competition for hockey players is tremendous, if you aspire to play at a higher level beyond high school and have to make a choice (financially, time restraints, etc) between HS and say a Jr team, more than likely you're not playing HS. If your HS doesn't embrace the program (even as a club team), you're less likely to play there than at another school that supports the program, etc etc......The leagues/schools (that are really "club" teams) can't change this (or it's a heck of a lot harder), so they need to do whatever they can to attract players. So, they do what they can control, they created V2's, now they take them away. And again, that's OK. But it will have little or no effect on the ability of public schools to field competitive teams, and all it will tend to do over time is lower the level of play of the better teams so other teams can compete with them. Which in turn will tend to have fewer of the top players play HS and opt for juniors or club teams. Seems like a downward spiral to me. If the goal is to water down the talent level for the benefit of all, then so be it.

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

Call them whatever you want. If they're JVAAA then they compete against like squads. Call them Varsity II and they get the advantage of "playing down". Would LaSalle's Varsity II, II and sometimes IV play in the AAA Playoffs and Flyers Cup? They should based upon where their school is placed. Bet people would change their tune a bit if that were the case. After all it's still Malvern, LaSalle, etc. and it's still a varsity so why not AAA?

quote:

Matt, not sure why you are directing the level playing field remark to me - was that meant for crusader's comment?????

Yes Ralphy, My apologies