hhfan,

You're wasting your time trying to rationalize the situation. The loophole of being able to have an outside player on your team AND continue to play at the 'A' level is there to take advantage of THIS year. NEXT year is what I am touting. However, I'm not going to argue against some Henderson fan who claims PV should have an asterisk next to their name IF they were to go on to win the FC or State Championship for carrying a billeted player.

Let me ask you this: What is the PV plan for next season? You could have begun to prep that boy who is playing at JVB on your JVA team and helped him get better prepared for his varsity season, but no, instead he plays on JVB and you got a kid from Phoenixville (and the last time I checked that's a different school district)to play goal on that JVA team. IF, I am wrong about that feel free to correct me, and I then apologize in advance.

My issue with PV is that the 2 facts of obtaining a billet goalie to play varsity and getting the boy from Phoenixville to play JVA seem to be more of a prevailing philosophy over there, because it gives you a better chance to win. When Rob is gone, what are you going to do next year? I'll bet it's not play the JVB kid. Perhaps another billeting goaltender eh?

P.S.: The eh is for effect, because I hear Canada has a lot of goalies that aspire to play Jr. & HS hockey.

lemieux --- So what do you REALISTICLY propose for next year, bearing in mind that a kid who moves into the district for the entire school year, or even two years, should have access to all of the school facilities and activities that the rest of the students have?

quote:

Originally posted by hhfan:
rahal --- I agreed that PV was improved by having Sutherland and Nicholson. Does Sutherland being a goaltender somehow make him MORE unfair than other billeted players who might be forwards or defensemen? How about if he was a back-up goaltender? Or shared time like the tandem at Henderson? Or is it just unfair because he can take over a game?

WOOOOOO you said "would they be as good without him." Dont put works in my mouth, is there anything in my statement about fair or unfair?

N yes if you have ever seen Rustin play they are extremely deep and probaly the best coached team in A. Russo was a freaking DIII NCAA coach for what 5 years. They outshoot teams pretty much every game and lose because of there goaltending.

Oh, and, lemieux, I think the idea of another goaltender of Sutherland's caliber landing in the PV district next year is remote. But, you never know...it could be at any school. I think WC East has a couple of Jr. Flyers in the district, so perhaps someone there will offer to billet a goaltender for them? who knows?

rahal -- Rustin actually beat PV 6-3 late in the regular season.

quote:

lemieux --- So what do you REALISTICLY propose for next year, bearing in mind that a kid who moves into the district for the entire school year, or even two years, should have access to all of the school facilities and activities that the rest of the students have?

hhfan- Since we would like hockey to be recognized by the PIAA we should follow their rules. Any transfer to a school for sports is ineligible to play for the school. A billet player is transferring into the school district for sports not academics. It may not be the same as a basketball or football player transferring from one PIAA school to another like they did in the old days but it is similar. First year they are ineligible, if they come back for another year at the same school then they are eligible.

Hawk -- I don't accept your view that a Junior player is transferring into a district for sports. He's coming to the state to play hockey and to finish high school. The billeted player isn't particularly concerned about which high school. he's going to go to whatever district he fall in to. The only difference him and a kid who comes to a district because his father gets transferred to the Philadelphia area is that he isn't dragging his parents along.

Is the student pay tuition to PV? Who pays the tuition? If not, PV taxpayers should rise up.

Since I'm assuming he does pay tuition how does that differ from going to LaSalle, Malvern, etc?

AGain, I have no beef with PV nor the student..they are following the rules in place. However, it seems an obvious inequity.

Lemieux66,

I once thought that you were a family friend and that you were a decent person, but I have lost all respect for you in the past couple of months. You are simply trying to enforce a rule that does not exist. If you want to dispute this, wait until next season's meetings, then you can complain all you want, and you may be received by the audience, but at this juncture in time, your argument has no backing because there are no rules that contain the word "billet".

We have no "master plans" brewing for next year, but I will tell you that we have a good 8th grade goalie coming up, and he is expected to fill Rob's shoes next year. PV hockey may take a step back in the next couple of years, but every team goes through rebuilding phases. Our JV A goaltender goes to Phoenixville, who has a JV A team, but with three goaltenders, He, being a sophomore, wanted to play school hockey, but did not want to suffer the boredom of a three-man rotation. He plays with our JV coach's son's youth team, and they decided to work something out for Adam to play for us. Also legal.

My biggest problem with you is this, the information that you are using against us came directly from my dad. You didn't seem to have a problem with billeting when he told you this, but you came on here behind his back and used things that he told you as a friend, against him. That is in bad taste, and has led to the changing of any inital impressions that you made on me. You are so witty on here, but this only shows when you talk behind people's backs. You had nothing witty to say when the e-mail was sent to you regarding the situation (in fact, you curled up into a shell and didn't have the courage to respond).

You are not worth arguing with, and this will be my last post on this forum; because of people like you, a place that should be used to promote ice hockey, is corrupting ice hockey. Believe it or not, we play because we love to play the game, LET US PLAY HOCKEY, we don't want to hear about the politics.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: pvhockey77,

No, the students don't pay tuition at PV. But, again, let's not forget all the other schools who host billeted players. I don't have a census of them, but currently and over the years, it has not been an unusual practice. It's only a serious discussion issue this year because there are a couple of real impact players involved and the school in question is having success due, in some part, large or small, to them. Billeted players are certainly playing for other AA and A level schools in greater Philadelphia and having success as well, just not as visibly.

We had this situation in the CPIHL (about 5 years ago)and the player was ruled ineligible. The reason was basically as Hawk stated. This transfer was for athletic reasons, it doesn't matter that it wasn't for athletic reasons at PV. Not sure what transfer rules are in the PIAA today, but we used the PIAA rules back then. The leagues involved need to adopt the PIAA rules.

I don't think he needs to pay tuition because he is living within the school district, with a tax-payer. School taxes are paid by all people in the township not just people with kids in school.

What PVhockey said is correct, they did NOTHING against the rules. Should it be against the rules, i think so but if its not you can't really complain. Yes, lots of teams have used billeted players in the past, and yes people did complain juts as much about it than as they do now. The only difference is this messageboard, more people are exposed to it. Before people only knew about the bilitted player though rink chat, which doesn't reach as many people as this board does. I am sure there will be a rule put in place prohibiting this practice just as long as all of the teams in PA, or at least Flyers Cup territory can agree on the terms.

cpihl1fan --- What you just said makes no sense. You said that you had had the same situation, then you said that the situation here was different but that that didn't matter, the solution should be the same...to use rules we don't have.
Can you put a different spin on that so that it tracks?

Jigga --- I think you are seeing the situation clearly as it exists. What the rule going forward should be, to me, remains a matter for some debate. I think there might be a very valid distinction between a kid moving from one district to a relatively adjacent one for athletic reasons (percieved better program or opportunity) and a kid coming from out of the area for another reason entirely (family relocation, Junior Hockey) and arriving in a district. The second kid, in my opinion, would not have "transferred to the district for athletic reasons". The first might be ineligable for a season, the second would not be, by my reasoning. What do you think?

quote:

Originally posted by hhfan:
Jigga --- I think you are seeing the situation clearly as it exists. What the rule going forward should be, to me, remains a matter for some debate. I think there might be a very valid distinction between a kid moving from one district to a relatively adjacent one for athletic reasons (percieved better program or opportunity) and a kid coming from out of the area for another reason entirely (family relocation, Junior Hockey) and arriving in a district. The second kid, in my opinion, would not have "transferred to the district for athletic reasons". The first might be ineligable for a season, the second would not be, by my reasoning. What do you think?

ARE YOU KIDDING ME HHFAN??? I could understand your argument of it not being a rule this year but trying to say he didnt move to your school district for "athletic reason" is rediculous!!!

HE LITTERALY MOVED EXACTLY FOR THAT REASON!!! At least found your argument in something somewhat reasonable.