If it's not under USA Hockey, the insurance bill would then be footed by the school.

quote:

Originally posted by Pa Hockey:
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.

Here's a nice summary of the (minor) differences between USA Hockey, NFHS, and NCAA rules (which ACHA also uses):

Ice Hockey rules differences

We need to keep in mind that the NFHS is not a governing body (like USA Hockey), but a coordinating body whose members are the 50 state athletic associations (plus D.C.). NFHS provides standardized rule books for sports, and provides coordination and guidelines for its member associations. The individual state associations set their own rules for eligibility, numbers of games, tiers, championships, officiating, coaching qualifications, etc., etc. Schools that are members of the state associations then provide their own insurance, hire coaches, schedule games, pay officials...

In contrast, USA Hockey provides our insurance, our playing rules, standards for coaches and officials, but generally regards HS hockey as its red-headed step child (we're "house/rec", remember).

......Carl and add this.....USA HOckey provides SUPPLEMENTAL INSURANCE over and above the Health Insurance carried by the family and the individual leagues are the governing body, not USA Hockey

quote:

from the USA Hockey Annual Guide,
USA Hockey, Inc., is recognized as this country’s National Governing Body for the
sport of ice hockey under the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act Title 36,
Chapter 17 § 391 United States Code.

But I agree with your other points. The medical insurance is a wrap-around--quite useful in paying the "deductible" upfront that your personal health insurance doesn't cover and (God forbid) available at the back end to cover catastrophic injuries. The other insurance is the "D&O" (Directors and Officials) liability insurance for coaches, club and league officers, etc. Just be sure to follow the required screening procedures.

Under PIAA regulation, each school district's insurance covers the whole gamut. Adding hockey would increase the premium, but football and a lot of other risks are already included in it. Another reason for limiting the number of games in each sport--capping the risk exposure.

quote:

Originally posted by 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.

whatthepuck ---
So you've reconciled yourself to the idea that kids who aspire to play college hockey will, under a PIAA affiliation, need to leave high school hockey and enter the Junior "system"...and that's a sacrifice worth making in order to have the affiliation. I think I understand your position, but I still don't understand what the PIAA brings to the table that is worth kicking college-bound players out of high school hockey. Money? No, in fact the local cost of high school hockey will inevitably increase with a PIAA affiliation. Uniformity? No need to affiliate with the PIAA to get that. So what do we get in exchange for running our best or most ambitious players out of high school hockey?
Why not take the good from the PIAA by-laws and other available sources and create uniformity that can be all-inclusive and form the "Pennsylvania Interscholastic Ioe Hockey Association" (or you pick a name) as a state-wide governing body? This way hockey would be governed by rules that recognise the uniqueness of hockey among high school athletics, which would not be the case if the PIAA rules were ever adopted. Just a thought...and I'd love to hear yours in response.

quote:

Originally posted by Pa Hockey:
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.

PaHockey ---
To your knowledge, how do the NHSF rules deal with the issues of players playing AAA of Junior hockey simultaneously with the high school season and the eligability of billeted players?

HHfam,

No offense is intended here, but the junior programs in this area aren't sending anyone off to D-1 programs. The guys that are making it to that level either have to go off to better Junior programs, like the USHL and NAHL, or in the cases of some players it didn't matter where they played because they were going either way. Junior hockey in this area just isn't strong enough to be considered a stepping stone to quality college hockey opportunities.

hhfan,

Your questions are multi-faceted, and not necessarily addressed with a simple answer. However, I will try to outline a response in which to attempt to answer them.

1. In my opinion, a well run, high quality Junior program would provide all of the necessary on & off ice training that a player should need. Any more, including HS hockey, I feel puts those young atheletes at risk for injury due to overusage/lack of recovery.

2. I think that there are several issues that Carl Wood once outlined that we should be striving toward to bring the sport of hockey into scholastic prominance (Carl, maybe you could reissue your list of these again). Here are a few of them:

A) A uniform system of rules by which all of the Statewide leagues can agree to. These aren't so much the playing rules, as much as they are the adminstrative, league structure and eligibility rules.

B) Conflicts between Club and Scholastic teams.

C) Gaining acceptance by High Schools as a true varsity sport.

Now, I DO NOT believe that you could come close to achieving just these three thing in one off season. Point C will never happen unless you can resolve Points A & B. It is my impression, that the PIAA is the governing body for all sanctioned STATE RECOGNIZED sports. I do not at all suggest that we and all of the other leagues look to the PIAA to govern us as a first step. Too much culture shock there. What I do suggest, and I think Carl Wood also is suggesting this, is that the leagues adopt the rules by which the PIAA operates with. The PIAA (as a governing body) would still not be involved. The leagues would still be the ones running the show, but at least everyone would be doing so under the same set of rules.

Next, if there is the goal to get HS hockey recognized in the schools as a varsity sport, it's going to take the power away from league administrators, and school hockey club board members, and put it into the hands of the PIAA and AD's. I see a lot of problems there, just on the sheer egos that would need to relinquish their almighty power. In other words, without the PIAA, I believe that Point C will never occur.

Part of getting to Point C will include addressing Point B, because of PIAA rules. This too will be difficult, more because of greedy rink owners and Club Hockey Presidents than of any truly rational explanation. I feel split seasons eventually would have little impact on "the gate", and I actually believe that the increase in exposure that a school recognized sport would bring would actually increase the number of kids that would get into the sport, leading to increases in numbers in the club teams.

Anyway, enough for now. I know there is an ICSHL league meeting coming up at the end of April. I'm planning on being there, since I think there could be a whole host of topics up for discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by Pa Hockey:
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.

PA Hockey ---
I can offer more specifics on how high school hockey is run in Connecticut, a state to which you referred. It falls under the jurisdiction of the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (say PIAA). The cost per player is typically well over $1,000 per season, plus he provides all of his own equipment, except jerseys, for which he pays a pre-season deposit against their return. They are prohibited from playing AAA or Junior hockey during the season. There is no split season Junior hockey. There are 2-3 midget AAA teams which play in the fall, before the HS season begins.
On rare occasions, a high school player moves directly from high school to college hockey. I personally know of 2 over the last 20 years. There have been perhaps a few more. In short, the Connecticut situation parallels what the PIAA situation would be like. There is an exodus of high school players who wish to play college hockey from their high school programs as seniors and, increasingly, as juniors in order to move to New England prep schools or the Junior system because of the prohibition against "club" play imposed by the governing body.

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

The PIAA rules in no way preclude players from playing on their HS team and another amateur team "in season". We're not in Connecticut any more, Toto! I'd suggest we all need to read the actual PIAA bylaws instead of making assumptions about what they contain.

PIAA rules and bylaws

The PIAA removed the specific language about playing on multiple teams in-season more than a year ago, apparently under the threat of lawsuits by soccer parents with agendas. Previously, in-season participation with another amateur team was banned, except if permitted in writing by the HS principal. The PIAA regulations are now mute on the subject, which leaves the whole issue at the discretion of the school.

I've read the Connecticut rules CT rules and they are quite draconian. Have you done the same for here?

Are we working towards being a true HS sport or not? That path appears to mean eventually leaving USA Hockey and coming under each state's athletic administration. Exactly the path boys lacrosse has followed. That's where "sanctioned" school athletics reside in each state.

NJ also has no restrictions on participation "in season", but the HS coaches (with their principals' backing) have chosen to enforce their own participation rules. Hence the competitive embarassment we had at the Atlantic District U18 finals this year.

Carl ---
I was unaware of the recent change in the PIAA rules regarding in-season club play to which you refer. To me, that change would make a potential affiliation with the PIAA more palatable. While I am still not convinced that there are any tangible benefits that cannot be gained by another sort of governing body and I am quite convinced that costs will rise significantly due to a potential PIAA affiliation, this recent rule change would at least remove one of the major negatives.

I just looked (amazing what's available on-line), and both Minnesota and Massachusetts athletic associations have rules banning or severely restricting playing on another amateur team "in season". Given the success of those two states in producing elite hockey players, the whole issue doesn't appear to limit their ability to advance in the sport.

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

Carl ---
I started this topic for the exact reason you are demonstrating...to get information on the table so that intelligent conversation can take place, now that the season is ending, on the possible need for rules changes and a possible affiliation with the PIAA. Subjects which have been thrown around all season on various topic lines without any central point of reference.
Certainly Minnesota and Massachusetts develop top-flight hockey players. I'm interested in keeping those players, wherever they are, in high school play...not moving on to Junior and out of high school play when they are 16 or 17 years old. As I said above, if the PIAA rules have been changed to accomodate both, that, to me, removes one negative to an affiliation with them. Others remain, but at least that one is gone.

quote:

Originally posted by Pondhockey11:
HHfam,

No offense is intended here, but the junior programs in this area aren't sending anyone off to D-1 programs. The guys that are making it to that level either have to go off to better Junior programs, like the USHL and NAHL, or in the cases of some players it didn't matter where they played because they were going either way. Junior hockey in this area just isn't strong enough to be considered a stepping stone to quality college hockey opportunities.

Pond ---
You're right. It's tough to go directly from many of the local Junior programs to D-1 hockey. But these programs can and do send kids into D-3 programs and/or serve well as stepping stones into the USHL or the Major Junior or Canadian A leagues. But not if you wait until after high school hockey to begin.

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

My only point I'm trying to make, why go to Juniors, especially in this area, when you could play Tier I Midget or even Bantam in some cases and get just as much exposure. I don't know if you'll agree with me on this point, but most of those players going on to better things from Juniors could have just as easily done it staying at midget. Why not develop the midget levels instead of sending these kids to a watered down junior program?