I agree with most of these posts except for the public and private school bracket, SM brings up a great point with keeping the leagues together. I don’t know how realistic that is because no league wants to lose “their” teams (goes back to the Eastern League and the Inter-County leagues debates over the central league)

From a players stand point keeping the leagues together makes the most sense. I played 3 sports in high school (Football, Hockey and Lacrosse). After played the same teams over and over you develop certain rivalries and competiveness towards those teams. I remember played Garnet Valley as a junior in hockey and thinking “Garnet Valley I have never even heard of that school.” It also bothered me that every year I would get kicked around by Ridley in football, play some close games but never win in lacrosse but not be able to beat them in hockey because they were in a different league. Also I would get to be pummeled by Upper Darby who’s sideline was literally 2 times the size of our team in size and numbers but not get a chance to “pay back” some of the hits I took because they were not in our hockey league. Point is I would have liked to play against Haverford High, Marple, Upper Darby and Ridley in hockey. Instead of Unionville, WC East, Council Rock’s, Malvern and Garnet Valley (To name a few teams Radnor played when I was in school). No offense to those teams but since I didn’t play them in any other sports I don’t really care to in hockey. I am for having a larger league and playing less crossover games. I am sure other players feel this way from all leagues and lets face it the hockey is about the players on the teams not the leagues.

(I know that Garnet Valley is now part of the Central league in all sports so they should be in it for hockey)

I think the first thing that can be done is combining the Eastern and Inter-County league, that would mean the central league could re-form, also the Ches-Mont league I think would be in its entirety with the leftover public school teams. So the left over teams could forum the ICSHL AAA league. I understand this has been tried over and over again with “Semi success” I understand after talking to some league reps in the Eastern league that they don’t want to give up control of their league so maybe a compromise could happen with the ICSHL. Instead of the ICSHL “taking over” they could include the people who have represented the eastern league in this “new” league. I understand that this is MUCH easier said that done and won’t happen over night but its something to think about.

It also seems like something that people want to see happen in the Lower Bucks and Suburban leagues I just don’t know enough about the league make up to comment.

I also agree with Matt, private school teams wishing to not compete at the AAA level should be allowed to do so but they should forfeit their flyers cup bid if they do so.

Also I think some sort of level playing field should be made with Pittsburg so schools of similar “standards” can play against each other. Notice I didn’t use the word size because size of the school doesn’t make a team good. Look at Upper Darby it’s one of the biggest public schools in the state and I heard they might not have a team next year. Standards being teams that put emphasis on their hockey teams and do what they can to bring players into the school. I also know Pittsburg is not out to get us but “they” for the most part think of us as inferior at hockey so our opinions seem to count for less so I see this as a much less feasible solution.

In addition to my previous post, I also believe in eliminating ALL Varsity II teams. This is even more of a boondogle than recruiting, because this is a way for private schools to hoarde players. Oh, you probably won't/can't play AAA your freshman year, but you can still play for Malvern, LaSalle, O'Hara's "2nd" Varsity team. I thik this should apply to Public as well as Private, but particularly for the Private schools so they can't hoarde players and just let them play Varsity II their first year if they transfer.

I know this is preaching to the choir to an extent. But consider as you read these posts--many of them excellent ideas (they do sound familiar)--that starting July 1st there will only be 4 HS hockey programs that aren't PIAA members: Malvern, GA, Haverford, Episcopal (all Inter-Ac). Still haven't heard if LaSalle is joining, but the current word on the street is GA won’t have enough players to field a team.

Consider this...if everyone is a PIAA member school, then we require all the teams to live by the PIAA rules for attendance and transfers--that includes "feeder schools", and all that. We then tier teams by size into 3 tiers. Non-PIAA member schools get placed into a tier by the Flyers Cup Committee. Teams can "play up" if they desire in the Flyers Cup, but can't play down from their size-based tier. Playing "up" requires a 2-year commitment, timed with the PIAA's 2-year size updates.

Because of the number of schools playing hockey (90% of District I students have HS hockey available to them), I don't think we can ever come up with a balanced schedule-playoff structure to determine the Flyers Cup participation. Like District I, we'll have to rely on a Selection process to seed the tournament.

So, my suggestion is: if all the schools are PIAA members (or NJSIAA members, by courtesy), then adopt those rules for everyone, and we have no more "public vs private" issue (except the few Inter-Ac schools). Separate the post-season honors (Flyers Cup) from the regular season scheduling. Play your traditional rivals (a la Central League), play a tough competitive schedule, play a softer developmental schedule, let the Selection Committee deal with the outcome. It works that way for other HS sports.

Finally, the PIAA method of splitting the pool of teams into tiers ("classes") doesn’t really care about “competition”, it is to protect the many really small schools, especially in the rural parts of the state. The PIAA method attempts to put schools into evenly sized ”classes”:

Football
A 1-197 136 schools
AA 198-337, 154 schools
AAA 338-541, 142 schools
AAAA 542-1800+, 143 schools

Even with 4 classes (see PIAA football), the range of school sizes at AAAA is huge. There’s a reason the mega-schools (North Penn, Neshaminy, etc.) are the usual suspects for the state championships.

The link below shows last year's Flyers Cup-eligible teams distributed into 3 size classes based on (1) same approximate number of schools in each "class"--breakpoints are AAA/750/AA/525/A, (2) same number of male population in each class--breakpoints are AAA/820/AA/620/A. Inter-Ac schools are placed where they were last year. It is interesting to see who is "playing up" on this basis.

Hockey Classes

Lastly, if we have 3 classes, we can consider aligning out schools in classes combining the western (PIHL) and eastern schools. But only if the PIHL replaces their current watered-down rules (they took all the “big words” out of the PIAA rules to make it easier to read) and agrees to use and enforce the PIAA rules. Then we’ll have the issue of too many big schools in the East, too few in the West. The PIAA solved that problem by sending eastern schools to play in the western bracket of their state Championships—why we had Lower Merion playing Chester in the AAAA basketball finals a few years back.

Penguins Cup School sizes

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

The issue of "hoarding" players is interesting in this regard. With the high schools there is an educational component. My son plays for LaSalle on one of the lower varsity teams. He will more than likely never play for the AAA team. As a SHSHL league official asked me what school would I send him to if LaSalle was forced to drop their other varsity teams, my response was none, I don't pay $14,000 to LaSalle for my son to play hockey, its for the EDUCATION. If that happened, he doesn't play HS hockey.

If the schools that have multiple varsity teams were forced to drop them to JV, I think you would see some players transferring, but not many. You would also create some very strong JV teams that would overwhelm their leagues.

These teams are already ineligible for FC.

Currently you have teams dropping out of HS hockey, this year there may be 3 more dropping from varsity (Conwell Egan , somebody said possibly Coatesville, and possibly Springfield Montco who has only 6 possible returning players), this would force out 5 more and only possibly marginally improve a few other teams.

Carl, I think you’re close with your recommendations regarding aligning all schools with the PIAA bylaw. However I don’t think it’s realistic to think that the Private Schools would ever give up their ability to recruit players let alone accept a defined feeder school system. When the Philadelphia Archdiocese went to the current model of open enrollment back in 1993 it opened a Pandora’s Box that they won’t ever be able to close.


As far as the merging of the SHSHL and the LBCSHL I’m all for it. I know for a fact that Pennsbury, HGP and Ryan all support the proposal. As for Neshaminy, their coaching staff may be interested but not their league representative. Those four schools met to investigate the pros and cons of a new merged league. However the two leagues have never met to formally discuss the feasibility. So the statement being made that it was voted down is not true, at least not from the LBCSHL point of view. A combined league would be great for the schools of Bucks and Montgomery County who already play each other in all of the other sports. I’m not sure who is throwing up the roadblock to prevent this but somebody certainly is. Somebody should be asking the leaders of both leagues what’s the hold up?


When viewing the Flyers Cup tournament remember the old adage of “If its not broke then don’t fix it.” This year the committee did a great job of seeding teams at all levels. We had 1 private school win and 2 public schools win titles. That’s the way it should be. If teams were allowed to move down it wouldn’t be long before 3 private schools were holding the titles. Let’s stop having the tail wag the dog, for far too long the private schools have had way too much power and say so regarding alignment. The current system works pretty good, lets leave well enough alone! The committee also has it correct in not allowing varsity 2 teams in the tourney. I have to give them credit for standing up to the programs that wanted to field two varsity teams

My main point is that the Archdiocese hasimposed PIAA membership--and all it entails--on its schools. LaSalle and St Joe Prep have to decide if they will follow suit or give up their Phila Catholic League relationships. So the "old way" of doing business (recruiting and all) is over and done with. The athletic establishment (coaches and ADs) at the PCL schools have complained mightily--they know how much this will change the way they do business.

So my point is, why run HS hockey by a different set of rules than all your other HS sports follow? If you don't want to do that, I have to ask why? The obvious answer is because there is a competitive benefit to doing things the old way--recruiting, "scholarships" paid for booster groups, waiving of fees...

So, we can either restructure eastern PA on an equitable basis (the "level playing field"), or, I agree, leave things the way they are for the forseeable future.

Carl,
I’m in complete agreement with you; I’m on your side with this issue. Just a few questions if you don’t mind.
1. Does this mean that the Catholic schools already have defined their feeder schools or are they in the process of doing so?
2. Would they be allowed to “cherry pick” the more wealthy areas and parish schools as to increase their chances of mining those affluent hockey players?
3. Would they hold some type of “draft” so as to make it fair for all of the affected schools?
4. Would more then one high school be allowed to lay claim to a prospective parish school
This reform that you are proposing sounds great! One last question. What’s the holdup?

Carl,

I think you and I are on the same or close to the same page. However, what I'm reading from some of the other people is: put all of the Private teams at AAA regardless of size of school so that the Public schools can have 2 FC titles and the Private schools one. I know for example that Shanahan plays in the Ches-Mont league in other sports, so they must be playing by the PIAA standard. I think Pius plays in a PIAA league as well. Why should those schools be punished for what Inter-Ac schools do. From what I understand, Shanahan (though they have 3 HS teams this year) is graduating something like 23 seniors, and many of their 8th graders are going elsewhere (i.e. Malvern, Salesianum, Wyoming Seminary, Prep school), so it's not as if EVERY private school enjoys the luxury of pulling in players from wherever they want. Again, if you simply apply the feeder school system to the Private schools to establish their "school district", I think you can get Private & Public school hockey to get onto more even footing. As a matter of fact, the thing I suggest is pretty much how the middle school league at IceLine works, and it seems to be a pretty good system. Though yes, Shanahan has won it the last two years - BUT prior to that Henderson and East have won it. So you can have Private & Public teams coexist and be competitive.

I am just simply amazed of the overwhelming results of people who want a change in general. This is obviously a hot topic that all league boards and FC committee SHOULD LOOK AT. The things that are being said now have been talked about for years...A change should occur, now to what degree that can be debated. The way the system is now it is simply inferior. Yea it is partly working with the right teams for the most part winning the championships for AAA, AA, and A, but this isn't why we are involved. It's for the good of high school hockey for all programs, not just the teams that have a chance of winning states. We have to keep all teams in mind not just the big boys. Honestly our best bet is to get PIAA sanctioning and make hockey a PUBLICALLY funded school sport to help alleviate costs, boost amount of players, and develop smaller programs. Schools like Lasalle have several varsity teams because they have a good program and school backing. They can't be faulted for that. It is the schools and clubs jobs to make their programs work.

cubano,

PIAA most likely won't take hockey on, let alone the individual school districts so I've been told. Has something to do with insurance costs as the primary reason - though I may be wrong about that. CarlWood would probably know better.

quote:

Originally posted by Old Man:

1. Does this mean that the Catholic schools already have defined their feeder schools or are they in the process of doing so?
2. Would they be allowed to “cherry pick” the more wealthy areas and parish schools as to increase their chances of mining those affluent hockey players?
3. Would they hold some type of “draft” so as to make it fair for all of the affected schools?
4. Would more then one high school be allowed to lay claim to a prospective parish school
This reform that you are proposing sounds great! One last question. What’s the holdup?

1. The Archdiocese HS (and other PCL schools that wish to do so) have to submit their applications to the PIAA soon. These include definitions of their "feeder schools". The rule for each private school “district" is that they must establish a fictional "junior high school" headed by the private HS Principal (and pay another PIAA membership fee). The PIAA rules currently says private schools are entitled to include the middle schools in the public school HS "district" where the private school is located, plus a list of "feeder schools" which can only be in one private school's" feeder list—and that list must be approved by the PIAA. That'd create a "land rush" to be the first to declare feeder schools, and (according to the Phila Inquirer and other sources) PCL schools will be able to claim as "feeders" any middle/junior high/elementary school that sends 25% of its 8th grade enrollment to the PCL HS--think St. Dorothy's in Drexel Hill being a feeder to both O'Hara and Bonner.
2. There’s some hidden tricks in this—for instance all of Philadelphia is a single school district—not sure how the “feeder school” definition would apply there.
3. I don’t know if the Archdiocese has any plans to apportion their parochial elementary schools among the Archdiocese HS.
4. see 1. above, regarding the 25% enrollment “rule”.

I am much inclined to let the PIAA sort out the feeder school mess, and then just use it as it falls out—why try to re-invent (and administer) the wheel?

And yes to L66’s point, Shanahan, Pius X, Holy Ghost Prep, Lansdale Catholic are already PIAA members. I only want to establish firmly that their hockey programs will behave by the same set of rules as their other sports are required to follow now. My original post was, given adoption of the PIAA rules for eligibility and transfer for hockey, we then would have only 4 schools playing by a different set of rules. And that’s a much smaller, more manageable problem.

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

the leagues were great last year for icshl why change them?

Where in any of this immediate discussion is there talk about "changing the leagues"? Within the ICSHL, those were "divisions", not "leagues". Scheduling teams for the regular season is a whole other discussion--internal to each league, and, trust me, as happy as you were with last year, there are others who were equally unhappy. A "league" is an administrative unit that buys ice, schedules games and officials, represents its members at the Flyers Cup Committee, dispenses "justice" hockey-style, and such-like. The ICSHL-South does none of those things.

2nd Varsity teams, impure teams would be placed into a division and play each other. Teams will be able to play up.
AAA
North Penn
Pennsbury
Upper Darby
Neshaminy
Easton
Parkland
Liberty
Emmaus
Father Judge
Abington
Archbishop Ryan
Cumberland Valley
Pennridge
Hempfield
Bensalem
Central B South
Coatesville
William Tennent
Ridley
LaSalle
Cardinal O'Hara
Saint Joes Prep
Monsignor Bonner
Roman Catholic
Bishop Shanahan
Holy Ghost Prep
Malvern Prep
Germantown Academy
AA
Council Rock North
Boyertown
Council Rock South
Souderton
Norristown
Northampton
Freedom
Penn Manor
Central Dauphin
Central B East
Central B West
Conestoga
Downingtown West
Springford
Wilson
Downingtown East
Manheim Township
Quakertown
Dallastown
Hatboro-Horsham
Methacton
Red Lion
Carlisle
Haverford
Cedar Crest
Phillipsburg
Central York
Upper Dublin
Central Dauphin East
Plymouth/Whitemarsh
Cheltenham
Cedar Cliff
W.C. East
Lower Dauphin
Wissahickon
W.C. Rustin
Warwick
W.C. Henderson
Interboro
A
Conestoga Valley
Perkiomen Valley
Penncrest
Garden Spot
Garnet Valley
Red Land
Ephrata
Chichester
Strathhaven
Cocalico
Elizabethtown
Unionville
Mechanicsburg
Marple Newtown
Great Valley
Sun Valley
Springfield (D)
Archbishop Wood
Hershey
Kennett
Radnor
Upper Moreland
Susquehannock
Lampeter-Strasburg
Susquehanna Twp.
West York
Muhlenberg
Conwell-Egan
Kennard-Dale
Palmyra
Northern Lebanon
York Suburban
ELCO
Bishop McDevitt
Crusaders
Lansdale Catholic
Middletown
Springfield (M)
Haverford School
Pequea Valley
Annville-Cleona
Saint Pius X
Episcopal

What is this?

What makes Archbishop Wood 'A', But has Shanahan at AAA? Both are the same size and have the same fundamental advantages when it comes to open enrollment.

You have private schools at AAA and A, but none at AA. What is the rational behind that?