There's been much talk on this forum throughout the season about the potential of hockey becoming a PIAA sport. Most all of the conversation has implied that there are obvious benefits to such an affiliation which, again implicitly, would out-weigh the benefits of any other possible affiliation or re-organization of existing leagues or governance.
What are those benefits and why are we sure that they would out-weigh the potential alternatives?

Advantages would be teams would recieve funding from the PIAA, rather then just boosters and sponsers... like in football where the school gives out pads, equipment, etc., the hockey teams would recieve that also, which would bring more players to the game who previously could not afford the expensive equipment... There would most likely not be a flyers cup, it would be District 1 play-offs, Then State Play-offs most likely... And NJ teams most likely would be left on the outside, this is a negative or positive depending on your view point... PIAA has both its advantages and disadvantages, I think its fine how it is now, but the PIAA would allow for more students to play because you wouldnt be forced to buy equipment

quote:

Originally posted by hockeyman:
Advantages would be teams would recieve funding from the PIAA, rather then just boosters and sponsers... like in football where the school gives out pads, equipment, etc., the hockey teams would recieve that also, which would bring more players to the game who previously could not afford the expensive equipment... There would most likely not be a flyers cup, it would be District 1 play-offs, Then State Play-offs most likely... And NJ teams most likely would be left on the outside, this is a negative or positive depending on your view point... PIAA has both its advantages and disadvantages, I think its fine how it is now, but the PIAA would allow for more students to play because you wouldnt be forced to buy equipment

hockeyman ---
There's a difference between the PIAA and "the school". I don't believe the PIAA would expect to provide any money to any school. If anything, the opposite might be true.
Currently, the typical team program cost is around $30,000 per year, I would guess, and is paid by the players. Equipment, averaging in goaltenders, another $1,000 per player, or $22,000, paid by the players. Jerseys at $250 per player is another $5,500, paid by the players. Throw in another $5,000 in miscellaneous expenses and you have a total program cost of $62,500 per year.
That's the same approximate cost of one additional new, inexperienced, teacher. Schools are not going to simply absorb that new cost. The players are going to have to continue to pay it.
Unless I'm wrong about that, which I doubt based on what happens in other states, the PIAA will cause no direct financial benefit to players or schools. In fact, there may even be a cost to be paid by the school to add hockey to its PIAA membership!

Agreed, I dont think the PIAA will buying anyone gloves or shin gaurds. The expense for equipment will definately still be in the hands of the players.

I think the idea is to first adopt the PIAA rules, as a means of gaining uniformity of rules across the various leagues. From there, you could potentially petition the PIAA for inclusion, which I believe would be easier to do if the rules are already in place. Just an opinion though.

quote:

Originally posted by hhfan:

quote:

Originally posted by hockeyman:
Advantages would be teams would recieve funding from the PIAA, rather then just boosters and sponsers... like in football where the school gives out pads, equipment, etc., the hockey teams would recieve that also, which would bring more players to the game who previously could not afford the expensive equipment... There would most likely not be a flyers cup, it would be District 1 play-offs, Then State Play-offs most likely... And NJ teams most likely would be left on the outside, this is a negative or positive depending on your view point... PIAA has both its advantages and disadvantages, I think its fine how it is now, but the PIAA would allow for more students to play because you wouldnt be forced to buy equipment

hockeyman ---
There's a difference between the PIAA and "the school". I don't believe the PIAA would expect to provide any money to any school. If anything, the opposite might be true.
Currently, the typical team program cost is around $30,000 per year, I would guess, and is paid by the players. Equipment, averaging in goaltenders, another $1,000 per player, or $22,000, paid by the players. Jerseys at $250 per player is another $5,500, paid by the players. Throw in another $5,000 in miscellaneous expenses and you have a total program cost of $62,500 per year.
That's the same approximate cost of one additional new, inexperienced, teacher. Schools are not going to simply absorb that new cost. The players are going to have to continue to pay it.
Unless I'm wrong about that, which I doubt based on what happens in other states, the PIAA will cause no direct financial benefit to players or schools. In fact, there may even be a cost to be paid by the school to add hockey to its PIAA membership!

First of all, tell me where an inexperienced teacher starts at $62,000 a year because I will submit my application. The way it works in the states in the mid-west is the school district will pay for the cost of the uniform (socks, shell, jersey) the use of the school name and colors, insurance and the salary of a coach. Some districts will even pay for helmets and gloves, but that will be it. The kids finally get a varsity letter.

If the PIAA sponsors hockey, then the students would have to remain academically eligible every week and their season would start the first week in November (just like basketball and wrestling) and have to end by the second week in March. This would force the hockey clubs in the area to do a split season at the midget level. If the midgets go on hiatus in November, that would force the kids who play only club hockey to either play junior hockey or play high school hockey in addition because they wouldn't skate for close to 5 months. That would improve the quality of hockey in this area. In addition, the school districts would have to have an administrator at the games. I guarantee that would eliminate any nonsense at the rinks.

I have actually contacted several officials in the states that sponsors ice hockey how they sponsor and pay for hockey. Several said they will get back to me once their Winter Season ends with some help and guidance.

I used to play lacrosse and the school gave me all my equipment for free and lax wasn't even PIAA at the time. Even if it was PIAA, I could see the diffrence between cheap second rate lacrosse stuff and $1,000 goalie pads, and even if we gave kids equipment we still have the problem of many people in this aera can't skate. Skates cost 100x what a soccerball or football costs and thanks to gobal warming we can't just go out on a lake and try to skate without having to take a few swimming lessons first.

That being said I think it is time hockey gets some respect as a sport in this reigon. Heck I go to a school that only advertized for 2 hockey games (and one of them was a JV) wile tennis gets press for almost every match (no disrespect to them). However I think if fronted the bill SV would just drop hockey from its extracurriculars

quote:

Originally posted by pez35:
I used to play lacrosse and the school gave me all my equipment for free and lax wasn't even PIAA at the time. Even if it was PIAA, I could see the diffrence between cheap second rate lacrosse stuff and $1,000 goalie pads, and even if we gave kids equipment we still have the problem of many people in this aera can't skate. Skates cost 100x what a soccerball or football costs and thanks to gobal warming we can't just go out on a lake and try to skate without having to take a few swimming lessons first.

That being said I think it is time hockey gets some respect as a sport in this reigon. Heck I go to a school that only advertized for 2 hockey games (and one of them was a JV) wile tennis gets press for almost every match (no disrespect to them). However I think if fronted the bill SV would just drop hockey from its extracurriculars

Lacrosse will be sponsored by the PIAA next year. The problem is the officials in the PIAA think hockey is the 1974 Broad Street Bullies. They honestly think there are brawls on the ice and insurance is too much even though USA Hockey has (Last time I checked) a million dollar insurance policy on each player. Yet if you point out that there are more deaths and serious injury in football every year than in hockey, they don't want to hear it.

The only way the PIAA will listen to people is if you start a petition and contact your local politicians.

The only way that Pennsylvania Hockey will EVER be affiliated with the PIAA is to go to the National High School Federation Rules and get rid of USA Hockey.........not gonna happen in your lifetime.

Too many people with their hands in the cookie jar and it works in Ohio, New Jersey, New York, Michigan, and 30 other states.

The advantages of the PIAA adopting hockey will not be financial. In my opinion, these would be some of the benefits:
- Acceptance/recognition of the sport by the school.
- Shortened season which would allow the players to spend LESS time on the ice.
- Uniformed eligibility and playing rules.

If the PIAA accepted hockey as it is by the NJSIAA, the district would be put into a position where they would be required to split the season. The 18AAA district tournament is a perfect example of why it would be necessary.

The biggest issue is that the kids in our district actually spend too much time on the ice with the way things are structured. I see no problem with the kids skating 9-10 months of the year, but they should be getting at a minimum, 2-3 days off per week. Many kids in our area skate 6-7 days per week and are forced to skate for both teams on many of those days. Professional hockey does not put that type of demands on it's players.

NHFS gives you that and USA Hockey doesn't

USA Hockey could provide that but IMO, they are being a little short sighted and not allowing it.

quote:

Originally posted by Luber25:
The advantages of the PIAA adopting hockey will not be financial. In my opinion, these would be some of the benefits:
- Acceptance/recognition of the sport by the school.
- Shortened season which would allow the players to spend LESS time on the ice.
- Uniformed eligibility and playing rules.

If the PIAA accepted hockey as it is by the NJSIAA, the district would be put into a position where they would be required to split the season. The 18AAA district tournament is a perfect example of why it would be necessary.

The biggest issue is that the kids in our district actually spend too much time on the ice with the way things are structured. I see no problem with the kids skating 9-10 months of the year, but they should be getting at a minimum, 2-3 days off per week. Many kids in our area skate 6-7 days per week and are forced to skate for both teams on many of those days. Professional hockey does not put that type of demands on it's players.

Good thoughts on the plusses Luber.

Schools would probably supply jerseys, socks, shells, helmets and maybe gloves. Letters, yearbook recognition are no big deal. Many schools have that now.

Schools are concerned with events in a facility they have no control over. Going NFHS would be a good first step. After that PIAA acceptance would naturally follow -- eventually. It took lacrosse awhile before they came on board, but they did. They gained varsity staus before PIAA staus. It's doable, just akes some big cooperation. Like Jeff said, too many people have to relinquish control for it to happen.

Matt Sacks -- The PIAA would not be in the money providing business at all. The ENTIRE COST of high school hockey will remain local. You know that.

whatthepuck -- How do the PIAA rules benefit ICSHL or other area-league hockey or their players? Why not create or revise the rules in cooperation with the other leagues? What does the PIAA bring to the table, in re rules, considering that their rules do not contemplate hockey as an included sport?

FlyersFan -- I said that the approximate COST of a new, inexperienced, teacher is around $62,500. Cost would include starting salary in the 30s, payroll taxes, fringe benefits, and related employment expenses. The point I was making to hockeyman is that school districts argue at length over school budgets and when it gets down to choices, they'll spend $62,500 per year to keep or hire a teacher long before they'll spend $62,500 on hockey. The major bulk of the program cost will remain with the players, as it does in other states.

Luber25 and sw14 -- You guys like 3 benefits, agreeing that there are no financial advantages. Now we're getting somewhere.
1. Increased recognition by the school. Put that in the potential benefit list.

2. Shortened season, less ice time. Who thinks that's a benefit? Not the players...not the colleges or juniors where they might play next...not necessarily the parents. That seems more like a price to pay for PIAA affiliation than a benefit to be derived from it.

3. Uniform eligibility and playing rules. PIAA affiliation would seem to be unnecessary to achieving that, particularly if the only other thing they bring to the table is the possibility of your benefit #1(above). If the various leagues can agree to the PIAA rules, they should be able to take those rules as a template and write their own, which would be more "hockey aware". Don't you think?

Aforementioned, if Interscholastic Hockey is run under the National High School Federation Rules and Sanctioning. All High Schools would be sanctioned [who join] and then would be restricted to the number of games you play, when practice starts and so on by the governing body. In this case it would be the PIAA.

The cost of hockey would be controlled and the insurance issue with USA Hockey goes away as does a lot of things. Minnesota kicked USA Hockey out many years ago and is now under the Minnesota High School League. It works there and several other states in the Northeast including Connecticut, New Jersey, New York State, New Hampshire, Ohio and Maine.

It will never happen in Pennsylvania because the people [both Western and Eastern] would never let it happen.

The advantage to doing this is that you COULD easilly have a split season and High School Hockey would start in mid to late November and end with the State Finals in February or early March. This would resolved the travel hockey conflict, reduce the cost, have hockey sanctioned and paid for and under the direction of the school, paid [and possibly qualified] coaching hired by the school, have the officials be PIAA approved and would result in more practice time for the teams.

It would improve the sport immensely. Pennsylvania has the most teams playing Interscholastic Hockey of any state or was near the top the last time I checked. The challenge to the PIAA would be to find hockey people to run it [get those resumes ready]
The more I talk to people across the country the better this situation is for the sport.