This is not an issue about the kid (nor the Jr Coach either). It's an issue of prospective rules.

The relevant fact is that his Junior Coach lives 10 minutes from PV although, I believe, in another, weaker hockey team's District. If I'm a Coach trying to find a billet for a player that is close to my rink am I going to send him to a stronger team or a weaker team?

This is going to come up repeatedly and should be addressed by the league. (What is the PIAA stance on a similar situation...say for football or basketball)?

There is no questioning PVs roster. You can see for yourself from hhfan what the story is. They are playing within the rules. Granted, I think that the issue of billeted Junior players should be addressed in an OPEN league forum, so that all of the teams can agree as to whether it should or shouldn't be allowed. I had someone argue to me, that other schools have done this so why shouldn't we? Well, just because Barry Bonds & Mark McGwire used steroids (and they weren't illegal in baseball at that time just yet) should it have been okay for guys like Brady Anderson and Lenny Dykstra to do so as well? Why should the big guys get all the benefits, while the little guys struggle? The answer is that it's really wrong no matter how or who is doing it. Look, no matter how you cut it, you'll get an argument. But, like MLB, until you put something hard and fast in writing, nothing can be done to curb what is going on. So for this year, PV's roster should be a non-issue. Now, next year when PV needs another goalie (which I think they will), if a rule is not in place stating that billeted players are forbidden to play HS hockey, then they should be allowed to pull in another Junior billeted goalie.

If the league doesn't ratify rules governing this issue, every team should be allowed to billet and play Junior players. If your school is close to a rink with a Junior program, you should stand a better chance of getting these players.

I'm not questioning PV's roster, I'm questioning the rule.

I don't think that there is a team out there that wouldn't love to have a couple Jr. players on their rosters. As long as it is within the rules I don't see any problems. Hockey players are there to play hockey and should relish the opportunity to play against the best and highest competion that they can. If PV's goalie is billeting in the district and attending and playing for the school team; within the rules then good for PV and the rest of the team. I hope he puts them over the top. It is no different to me than schools that actively recruit; but we won't go there!

Harks,

You went there. Using billeted players is in essence de facto recruiting. Those schools that are not in close proximity to rinks with Junior teams are at a distinct disadvantage. The way I see it there are three choices.

1. Do nothing and let those schools that have "ins" with Junior teams do as they please.

2. Put a rule in place that forbids the use of billeted players.

3. Put a provision in that requires those schools that use billeted players, must play at the AAA level much like the open enrollement schools that you say recruit.

Otherwise, if you don't put the schools that billet in the AAA level, I'd say then HGP should be allowed to play A if they choose to do so, since they only have @ 250 students.

From what I heard, Perk Valley was only looking for a goalie (any goalie!!!) that wouldn't abandon his team the night before the first game of the Flyers Cup to go to DisneyWorld!
I'm sure they would have taken anyone with a set of goalie pads. Lets not forget, Perk Valley actually won their first Flyers Cup game last year with a brave forward strapped to the net!

Rink proximity has nothing to do with it, only the willingness to open your home to a JR player. Most Jr organizations have to scramble to find billets for prospective players. I live in Skippack (PV) and Billet a Jr player for the Little Flyers Jr A who is not school aged. He has to drive almost a hour 3X a week for practice and is just glad to have a place to stay while he is playing here

If a billet player is school aged (under 18), the billet family becomes their legal gaurdians.
If they then go to the local school, why shouldn't the be allowed to play? The players from PV were not recruited to come to this area for the purpose of playing hockey for PV.

Any one here needs only to contact one of the local Jr programs to offer to billet a player. It is a great program and I have never regreted opening our home to the fine young gentleman we have living with us. I hope you do and give an opportunity to an aspiring hockey player.

We looked at it as a way to give a little back to a great sport. Not as a way to manipulate the local HS Hockey league

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

There are more choices than that even:

4. Use the "Connecticut Rule" and restrict ALL high school players from simultaneously playing either youth or Junior hockey. If any player in a district can play both, all players should have the same privilage.

I don't suggest this option. In fact, Connecticut schools feel dis-advantaged, I'm told, in that, due to this rule, they lose top players like Rob Sutherland to Junior teams, both in-state and out-of-state. My personal opinion is that likely there isn't an appropriate rules change available.

To Speedkills --- Atta-boy!

I feel badly for last year's PV team, CJ really did let those guys down, and I have to believe that is how they are justifying their use of the billeted player for this year. However,PV is using a goalie from Phoenixville at the JVA level, because they felt their JVB goalie wasn't ready for JVA let alone Varsity. This is what gets my eyebrows raised about the PV intentions. For crying out loud that is JV! I just look at the contrasting approaches that PV and Garnet Valley took to the same problem. Garnet Valley might actually be playing PV for the ICSHL championship with the players they have, IF they had gone out and gotten say the Junior Flyers' Jr B goalie (if he's billeting). Instead they played with the guy that they had within their system (school district), and yet they do not have the chance to play for the FC. That being said, PV is still playing within the rules like whatthepuck said.

quote:

Originally posted by SpeedKills:
If a billet player is school aged (under 18), the billet family becomes their legal gaurdians.
If they then go to the local school, why shouldn't the be allowed to play? The players from PV were not recruited to come to this area for the purpose of playing hockey for PV.

Having the billeting family appointed "legal guardian" does not confer resident status on the student, unless the student is so located by court order, or is "emancipated". Are these students paying tuition to the Perkiomen Valley school district?

quote:

Originally posted by pvhockey77:
I appreciate the backing that Perkiomen Valley is receiving from hgp fan and hhfan, and we have done nothing outside of the rulebook. We by no means "recruited" these players. Our goalie came down from CT to try out for the Eastern Penn Bucks, and was initially supposed to live with our head coach. After the Bucks folded, My mom invited him to a tryout with my team, and after he made the team, we invited him to live at our house, which is within the PV border.

Our other player in question was all Domish's doing, we had no idea that Logan was even going to our school until his billet family, who has no affiliation with PV (besides living in the district), came to me and asked if I could drive him to practice from school everyday.

This is just how things fell, we did not go out of our way to "recruit" these two guys, it is just the way things happened. Do not take away our team's accomplishments because of two players. We have lost two games (one being in the Christmas Tournament) since November 9th, and while Rob and Logan played key parts in many of those games, they are not the only reason we win. We have a strong core and good leadership, that is why we win.

...maybe a little more youthful honesty than is prudent.

As my father used to say about drawing to an inside straight in poker..."its more indicative of skill than luck".

And HHfan, why not come out of the closet--you seem a real expert on Connecticut schools and hockey? You won't have to say you were "away on business" and missed a PV game, when you are snug in your own bed that night. I appreciate your enthusiasm for your son's hockey career, but there are larger issues at play here than that.

For this year, PV's billeted players are good to go, but we certainly can discuss this again in the Spring ICSHL board meetings, hopefully with a more educated and interested membership that understands that billeting can tip the level playing field to teams based on resources and access to these players.

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

Amen Carl.

And like you said in an earlier post (though I'm not quoting). Many of the league representation either weren't paying attention, didn't care, or hoped to take advantage of this loophole. I'm sure that many more will be paying attention this time, and just as many or more will care.

Carl --- Were the player in question my son, I would happily say so. He isn't. But I know his parents, who attend as many PV and Junior games as they can and, therefore, have learned a bit about the kid, his background, and why he's here. The Ct. athletic by-laws are readily available to anyone interested at the CIAC website, which anyone can easily navigate to if interested in the rules in Ct.
I believe you commented in an earlier topic thread that,when the subject of billeted players came before the League governing body this year, 1/3 of the group didn't care about the "issue" (emphasis added) of billeted players, 1/3 didn't understand what was being discussed, and the last third kept quiet because they either have billeted players or thought they might in the future.
My own opinion, respectfully, is that Speedkills has the right thinking on this, as I've said. Many Junior teams have a terrible time finding families willing to billet players. Families who do should be praised, as should families who are so supportive of the children's plans and dreams that they are willing to undergo the hardship of separation from their adolescent child in that pursuit. They shouldn't be cast as interlopers who are somehow out to play the system to everyone else's detriment.
As to the "bigger issues at play here" than whether a kid who resides in a district can fully participate in his school's programs? Frankly, I can't think of a bigger issue than that, again, with great respect to your time, effort, and expertise.

quote:

Originally posted by hhfan:
Many Junior teams have a terrible time finding families willing to billet players. Families who do should be praised, as should families who are so supportive of the children's plans and dreams that they are willing to undergo the hardship of separation from their adolescent child in that pursuit. They shouldn't be cast as interlopers who are somehow out to play the system to everyone else's detriment.
As to the "bigger issues at play here" than whether a kid who resides in a district can fully participate in his school's programs?

You are right, I can't think of a bigger issue, which is why this a hot topic. I ask people regularly, is this high school hockey or high school hockey? The objectives of HS sports are fundamentally different than for club hockey. Do we need two flavors of "club" hockey? If your fundamental concern is getting your player to the "next level", by all means go for it. HS sports have other objectives--I am sure the CT HS rulebook has some pretty verbiage on the subject, just like the PIAA does.

In terms of the trials and tribulations of Jr hockey players--not my concern. There's so much promotion and financial self-dealing running through the whole subject of Jr hockey that I want no part of it. I think HS hockey and youth Hockey ("Midgets") can come to an accommodation. The objectives of Jr hockey are so at odds with HS, I say fine--make your choice, play Jrs, don't expect to have your cake and eat it, too.

You take playing opportunities from home-grown players (for better or for worse), you tilt the level playing field, you bring off-ice resources and access into play, you encourage other teams to pursue the same advantages (a hockey "arms race"), you raise unanswerable questions about financial incentives to participate in HS or not--all issues that are contrary to what is in the best interests of a HS sport.

So yeah, we'll courteously agree to disagree when I tell you I think what is in your best interest is not in the best interest of HS hockey in PA.

hhfan,

I'm pretty sure that this topic will be brought up in the league meeting in the future, and that more than a third will care, most should be educated on the matter, and less than a third will support it. IF, the issue of billeting is NOT addressed, I can foresee an ever increasing climate of competitiveness for either acquiring these players OR blocking these players from playing. Who's to say that a HS with ties to a Jr. team works it out so that NO Jr. players can play HS (already the case with Little Flyers I think). I'm actually feeling a little sorry for Malvern here, since they don't seem to have access to this kind of talent stream as much anymore.

Plain and simple hhfan. PV knew they couldn't win with the goaltending they had within their system (i.e. their JVB goalie). They felt slighted by what their legitimate goalie did to them last year, and they have a lot of talent this year so they rationalized that they should use the loophole to their benefit rather than let the JVB kid give it a go and suffer the fate that Garnet Valley did this year.