quote:

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?

It would do the players no good to go from minor hockey -- that is squirt to Midget -- and jump to a new set of rules devised in that hockey hotbed that is Harrisburg.

quote:

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.

HHFan,
Do you really think that it is necessary for the kids in this area to skate as frequently as they do? IMO, the kids in this area spend too much time on the ice. I am not even talking about the issue of the kids playing year round, I am talking about situations like the three kids from Pennridge had to deal with between districts and their league playoffs. During the week of their HS league championship, they were put into a position where they could have played 6 games in six days. Just from a safety/health standpoint, that is not a good situation. I am sure at least one of the two teams held a practice in there somewhere as well. I said this somewhere on here before but the NHL does not put those types of demands on their players and they are the best in the world.

Do you really believe that it makes a difference to a junior team or college whether a kid plays 75-100 games in a season as compared to 50? The major junior programs do not hit the number of games these kids play and in many cases, pro hockey teams don't either. It has been proven that kids develop quicker by practicing more. When a kid is put into a position where he is skipping a practice for team A in order to play for team B wouldn't that hurt the kid's development then?

You actually touched on one of the benefits that I should have included: parents. I know that the problem parents are the vocal minority but the best thing that could happen to our sport at the high school level is to reduce the parental involvement to the absolute minimum level possible. I know that even in the school's hands, that is not going to end but it would be reduced. Speaking as a former coach, parents are the only reason I will not do it again.

I don't know if anyone has ever posted the link to the Don Lucia speech before, everyone involved in youth hockey at any level should watch it.
Don Lucia's views on youth hockey

Luber25 ---
I'm in the middle of my day and really can't respond to your post until this evening...but this is exactly the kind of discussion I was trying to get started. I'm trying to get a handle on what, if any changes, need to be made in area HS hockey and whether an affiliation with the PIAA is the best way to make any such changes. You can tell from my tone that I am unconvinced that the PIAA brings positives that out-weigh the negatives...but, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. And this whole subject is the most important off-season topic on the table. More later. Thanks for your responses thus far.

I just received the following email from the associate director of MSHSL with some advice.

Each member school is responsible for the administration and management of its MSHSL sponsored hockey programs. How schools manage and pay for their programs also varies from school to school. The best way to find the answers to your questions would be to contact the athletic directors at some of our member schools. I suggest you send an email to a handful of MSHSL member schools. You can find the list of schools that offer hockey and the contact information for each school at: MSHSL

USA Hockey is not involved with our high school hockey. The MSHSL falls under the umbrella of the National Federation of High Schools.

Craig Perry
Associate Director
MSHSL

The NHFS is the way to go

Look everyone, I don't think that the entire state of PA could, should or would want to come under the governing body of the PIAA (at least just yet). That being said, what I think would be useful is to use the PIAA rules as a starting point for ALL of the leagues to adopt in order to get uniformity across them. This basically gives you a template to work from. IF, you (the leagues) would want to change something they all can vote to adopt the change or not. IF you try to get all the leagues in one room to create a new set of governing rules, I think what you would get is something they say as: "Having too many chefs in one kitchen". As far as I know the Constitution barely got written, and many would agree that the powers in charge of hockey across the state are no founding fathers. If you start with the governing rules of the PIAA, it should also allow for hockey to come into line as a school sponsored sport since we would already be playing by their rules. Once the schools then sanction hockey as a true varsity sport, you could THEN come under the governance of the PIAA.

quote:

Originally posted by Luber25:

quote:

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.

HHFan,
Do you really think that it is necessary for the kids in this area to skate as frequently as they do? IMO, the kids in this area spend too much time on the ice. I am not even talking about the issue of the kids playing year round, I am talking about situations like the three kids from Pennridge had to deal with between districts and their league playoffs. During the week of their HS league championship, they were put into a position where they could have played 6 games in six days. Just from a safety/health standpoint, that is not a good situation. I am sure at least one of the two teams held a practice in there somewhere as well. I said this somewhere on here before but the NHL does not put those types of demands on their players and they are the best in the world.

Do you really believe that it makes a difference to a junior team or college whether a kid plays 75-100 games in a season as compared to 50? The major junior programs do not hit the number of games these kids play and in many cases, pro hockey teams don't either. It has been proven that kids develop quicker by practicing more. When a kid is put into a position where he is skipping a practice for team A in order to play for team B wouldn't that hurt the kid's development then?

You actually touched on one of the benefits that I should have included: parents. I know that the problem parents are the vocal minority but the best thing that could happen to our sport at the high school level is to reduce the parental involvement to the absolute minimum level possible. I know that even in the school's hands, that is not going to end but it would be reduced. Speaking as a former coach, parents are the only reason I will not do it again.

I don't know if anyone has ever posted the link to the Don Lucia speech before, everyone involved in youth hockey at any level should watch it.
Don Lucia's views on youth hockey

Luber ---
You raise a number of questions. I should say that I have a 17-year old son who plays both high school and Junior and I also coach, though never a team my son has been on.
Do I think kids in this area need to skate as much as they do? To me, that's a simple question that doesn't have a simple answer. In a nutshell, I think that varies from kid to kid and depends on what the individual kid's goals, priorities, talents, and physical attributes might be. In my view, if a kid aspires to play in college or professionally, playing both Junior or AAA and high school is not only not too much, it's become almost a necessity. Not absolutely, but almost. And what concerns me, among other things, about affiliation with the PIAA is their prohibition of players from playing both simultaneously. The inevitable result of that prohibition is that the college-hopeful player can't begin the necessary Junior play until after high school, spending at least one and generally two years out of school playing hockey before becoming a college freshman. The only alternative to that scenario, in nearly all cases, is for the college-hopeful player to abandon high school hockey after his sophomore or junior year in order to get into the Junior "system". Or to spend a $40,000 post-grad year at a New England prep school after graduation before moving into a college program. The problem with the PIAA rule is that it didn't contemplate the current reality in hockey, which is unique for the college-aspiring player in high school athletics.
I agree with you that simultaneous play carries heavy burdens with it from time to time, as in the types of cases you cited. However, hockey remains, even in those circumstances, a safe sport when compared to other high school sports like football and basketball. Football, in my view, is an almost guaranteed serious injury for any serious player.
So, my concern is that the PIAA prohibition would result in college-aspiring players to move on to Junior and forsake their junior and/or senior year of area high school play. That in and of itself would cause me to wish to avoid the PIAA, as it would be forcing athletes out of high school hockey. The prohibition only affects hockey, as all other major high school sports feed directly into college programs without the necessity of a Junior "system".
I couldn't agree with you more that the biggest problem for coaches is parents. My policy has always been to leave the coaching of my son's teams to his coaches, involving myself privately with him only in the technical aspects of his game. And as a coach, I limit myself to mites and squirts. After that, both the kids and the parents begin to think they know everything. I'm not sure, though, that I can see how an affiliation with the PIAA would ameliorate the "parents problem". I think parents will still be parents irrespective of who employs the coach. What I think might happen is that more intractable or entrenched-in-the-school-hierarchy coaches would simply create another reason for players to move out of high school hockey. I'm not sure about this, though.

quote:

Originally posted by whatthepuck:
Look everyone, I don't think that the entire state of PA could, should or would want to come under the governing body of the PIAA (at least just yet). That being said, what I think would be useful is to use the PIAA rules as a starting point for ALL of the leagues to adopt in order to get uniformity across them. This basically gives you a template to work from. IF, you (the leagues) would want to change something they all can vote to adopt the change or not. IF you try to get all the leagues in one room to create a new set of governing rules, I think what you would get is something they say as: "Having too many chefs in one kitchen". As far as I know the Constitution barely got written, and many would agree that the powers in charge of hockey across the state are no founding fathers. If you start with the governing rules of the PIAA, it should also allow for hockey to come into line as a school sponsored sport since we would already be playing by their rules. Once the schools then sanction hockey as a true varsity sport, you could THEN come under the governance of the PIAA.

Probably the best solution is to use the PIAA rules for eligibility (transfers, participation, etc) and use the NFHS rules for play. One major issue IS the difference in rules form league to league, East to West, etc. One governing body, one set of rules.

If PIAA and NFHS takes the power away from some of the morons in charge now, It would be a heck of a good start.. I would assumed those who are filling their pockets now would have to find another cookie jar.

quote:

Originally posted by whatthepuck:
Look everyone, I don't think that the entire state of PA could, should or would want to come under the governing body of the PIAA (at least just yet). That being said, what I think would be useful is to use the PIAA rules as a starting point for ALL of the leagues to adopt in order to get uniformity across them. This basically gives you a template to work from. IF, you (the leagues) would want to change something they all can vote to adopt the change or not. IF you try to get all the leagues in one room to create a new set of governing rules, I think what you would get is something they say as: "Having too many chefs in one kitchen". As far as I know the Constitution barely got written, and many would agree that the powers in charge of hockey across the state are no founding fathers. If you start with the governing rules of the PIAA, it should also allow for hockey to come into line as a school sponsored sport since we would already be playing by their rules. Once the schools then sanction hockey as a true varsity sport, you could THEN come under the governance of the PIAA.

whatthepuck ---
Your end-game has us coming under control of the PIAA. How do you see us benefitting from that? What do you think of the PIAA prohibition of players from playing AAA or Junior hockey simultaneously with high school hockey? How do you see us benefitting from that?

sm14 --- Same questions as addressed to whatthepuck.

hhfan,

In the interim between adopting PIAA rules and subsequently coming under their governing (which would or should only occur if hockey becomes a sanctioned varsity sport), the powers to be in the club arena would need to work out how to institute a split season. Plain and simple, if you're going to pursue Junior hockey, you'll probably going to be on the outside. I have nothing against Junior hockey, other than the fact that I feel the area is oversaturated with teams (which dilutes the pool with what could be good Junior hockey), but real Junior hockey should have the kids practicing 3 days a week with 2 games on weekends. Throw in travel, and that is what most kids should be maxxing out on in ice time, which gets back to sm14's point about overtraining kids.

The PIHL is a prime example that mergers in hockey are sometimes a bad idea from the administrative standpoint. The Hockey side of it has taken care of itself, but as we have seen in many posts, there is another side to hockey. The PIAA may be the best option to pursue this and the National High School Federation rules would become a part of hockey in Pennsylvania for those schools who wish to join.

It has taken New York many years to get this under one roof and they still have club teams playing under USA Hockey, but we are strating to see prominent schools like Orchard Park, Niagara Wheatfield, West Seneca East and West Seneca West now join the Federation of New York.
New York State has cheap ice in Buffalo and Western New York and cost has driven these schools to become sanctioned and move away from the USA Hockey Club Philosophy.

This is not going to happen in Pennsylvania for one reason and that is money. Rink Owners, people who are making a living or some nice stipends from hockey [On-Ice Officials, some Administrators, etc] are naming their price to perform services in Interscholastic Hockey and the parents, club officials and players are held hostage.

Good Luck !

sm14

Their is not much difference in the playing rules with USA HOckey, East and West. The difference comes with the number of games played.

If high school hockey is governed by the PIAA and they adopt NHFS rules instead of USA hockey rules, how will this effect player insurance?

Will players all still have to be USA hockey registered and still be covered under USA hockey's insurance policy? Or will school districts cover players under their insurance policy?