quote:

Originally posted by hhfan:

quote:

Originally posted by CarlWood:

quote:

Originally posted by hhfan:
I make no secret of my belief that a rush towards the PIAA does our local players no good whatsoever. I believe that virtually every real benefit that might be derived can be derived by a locally-created governing body, if it is necessary to "unionize" in some way. Many individual schools in the area have already succeeded in doing that on their own.
So, I can't agree that it's either the PIAA or "why bother?". I believe that we can ALWAYS do better locally to regulate, plan, spend money, and improve results than any remote collective will do.

Where in my "Top Ten" list did I mention the PIAA, other than using its medical exam form to be sure the players are healthy enough for hockey? My list is as local as it gets--the relationship between the hockey team and the school. And the school controls that relationship; all the hockey team can do is choose to try to promote it or not. Good behavior will get you school recognition, but "bad" behavior in the public eye may achieve the same result. If you want to use the school's name, you have to play by their rules. I have seen it work out both ways.

This thread is about "recognition", not PIAA membership. WE don't make the decision to join the PIAA. When enough schools have fully-recognized hockey programs, the member schools will initiate the process of making it a PIAA sport. That will be a long, drawn out process. We already have more HS ice hockey teams in PA than there are boys lacrosse teams, but lacrosse achieved that "full recognition" level much faster, which was the impetus for the PIAA to finally take over the sport.

In terms of the superiority of "local" decision-making: consider all the complaining on this message board about the various leagues, the "powers that be", different rules from league to league, the lack of formal local organization... If we get any more "local", the sport may collapse of its own infighting. Frankly, the PIAA sports model would take most decision-making away from the local leagues and move it to the school Athletic Directors--how's that for "local"?

Carl ---
You brought up the PIAA in the second to the last line of your quote that I was responding to (see my response above).
And, with respect to the benefits of local decision-making, I didn't suggest that we get more local. What I DID suggest is that a "locally-created governing body" should be able to produce virtually every real benefit that might be derived from a PIAA affiliation (see my response above), and that that would be a better choice than either of the two you offered, "PIAA...or why bother" (see my response above). It would certainly be better, more cost effective, and more hockey-oriented than turning ourselves over to a schools/PIAA bureaucracy.

quote:

Originally posted by FlyersFan:
HHFAN, I am not sure. If I hear anything I will post it. As for your suggestion of "one locally created governing body," I think that is the first step. However, there was a governing body back in the early 80's called "Hockey Central" that was connected with the Flyers. I'm not sure what happened to that. Could be many of the parents then realized that they knew so much more that the Flyers organization

quote:

What do you mean by funded? It is one of the more expensive clubs in the immediate area at ~$1400 a year.

quote:

Originally posted by blue:
Makes a token donation is probably more accurate but its better than nothing. NP is still expensive.