Originally posted by CarlWood: 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.
Carl, I agree with you. Do the players in Minnesota and Massachusetts leave? I think PIAA sanctioning will improve the sport.
1)If PIAA managed the sport there would be three classifications AAA,AA,A based upon High School Boys attendance. East would be playing Latrobe HS at AA this weekend as the schools are similar in size.
2)There would be no more billeting as PV did with out of state players unless they are foreign exchange students.
3)All classifications would have Academies and Parochial schools that can recruit up and including eighth grade. Large PA East schools would be playing in the same AAA class.
Originally posted by Pondhockey11: 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?
Pond --- You're right. I don't agree. Except in that an EXCEPTIONAL kid might move from midget AAA to a higher level Junior team just as a kid from one of the local Junior teams will. I can buy that. I just don't want to see us rule out in-season club play, whether it be midget, Junior, whatever. Because, until colleges quit making Junior a pre-requisite (even D-3), our kids need the opportunity to play it.
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.
whatthepuck --- I tend to agree that a well-run Junior program provides a vigorous on and off-ice schedule. And, since Carl has added the information that the PIAA recently deleted the rule prohibiting in-season club or Junior play, I'm content to leave the decision on whether or not a kid who wishes to play both club and high school should do so where I think it should be...with him and his parents. WE completely agree on your Point A. In reference to your Point B, I view those conflicts as being few in the overall scheme of things. If club leaders and scholastic leaders can agree that it is in their mutual best interests to minimize or eliminate those conflicts, it should be able to happen. With respect to Point C, I place far greater importance on A and B. Given the zeal of the fans that I see at area high school games, the fact that most, if not all, schools award varsity letters to hockey players, and that faculty, administrators, and other students "recognise" their hockey teams as theirs, OFFICIAL recognition seems far less important to me than Points A and B.
I still remain concerned with the billeting issue. I believe that if a kid moves to the area from, say, Maryland to play with the Jr. Flyers, for example, that he should be allowed to participate in ALL of the activities available at the area high school he attends, including the hockey team. It's my understanding of the PIAA rules that this would not be possible. PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong. But, as ridiculous as it might sound, if a kid from out of state had a chance to come to Philadelphia to dance with the Center City Dance Theatre, should (would) that kid be prohibited from participating in his new high school's theater activities? I think the answer is "No". I know the example sounds ridiculous. But, I think the principle is the same and the answer should be the same in each case. Neither kid transferred to the school because of the school's programs, athletic or artistic. So, both should be allowed to participate equally with all other students in school activities, in my view.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: 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,
Junior hockey is not the only hockey in this area saturated, everything but Midget AAA has too many teams for the talent pool. Especially AAA from Squirt to Midget Minor, way too many teams but it's big money. Midget AAA isn't saturated because of Juniors though.
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.
It could cause more players to leave the area or high school hockey and water the talent down more causing some teams to disappear because of low player numbers.
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.
How can it not be considered a stepping stone??? If a kid plays local Jr A/B hockey then heads north to Jr A/B hockey that is better, then off to college. Isn't that a stepping stone, just one extra step?
Some kids just aren't ready to head away up north and play better Jr hockey, the local hockey gives them a chance to see if they like it and exposure then can make the next step.
It's a big change for a kid to move, change schools and change how hockey operates while being away from family.
1)If PIAA managed the sport there would be three classifications AAA,AA,A based upon High School Boys attendance. East would be playing Latrobe HS at AA this weekend as the schools are similar in size.
2)There would be no more billeting as PV did with out of state players unless they are foreign exchange students.
3)All classifications would have Academies and Parochial schools that can recruit up and including eighth grade. Large PA East schools would be playing in the same AAA class.
Thoughts??????
The PIAA takes all schools statewide participating in a particular sport. In this case ice hockey. They then divide that group into categories of equal numbers of teams. If there are 225 teams then AAA would have the largest 75, AA the next largest 75 and A the smallest 75. This number is established every two years using male enrollment for male sports. It's concievable that two schools who are 10 males apart could wind up in different classifications. It would eliminate some schools who aren't PIAA like Episcopal, GA, etc.
I'm fine with the no billeting rule. In fact we should adopt it now.
Their is not much difference in the playing rules with USA HOckey, East and West. The difference comes with the number of games played.
Would we be using a four-man system in the states?
Would we all have ice cuts after two periods? Or not?
I think the solution is to stay USA Hockey registered and use the NFHS rules. It's a win-win. We use the rules that work well for us and we get the insurance benefit.
Originally posted by Pondhockey11: 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?
Pond only 1 Midget team gets good exposure from this area and that is Bud's team. But Bud also has to the play the same local midget teams over and over. Bud's team was ~$5000 + tons of traveling to league games, and major expenses incurred traveling to all those tournaments the team travels too. I would bet most families spent $10-15,000 for the season after all those other expenses come in(tolls, hotels, food, gate fees, gas!!! in the SUV). Not much different at Midget Minor either, I know my son did the AAA trek from Squirt Minor to Midget minor on teams that traveled like Buds. Not every family can afford that, and again 1 team with only 20 odd spots open and not everyone lives around Iceline to make it convenient all year long. VFMM did very little travel as the VFMM this season to get exposure like Bud, Comcast again very little travel.
I'm not sure how the Jr Flyers handle everything for the $6000, especially since majority of there games fall under the 100 mile radius rule for providing transportation.
But Tri-State Selects charged $6000, 3 practices a week compared to 2, hotels provided 100% for the kids when traveling, transportation to away games was around 98% (6 games in North Jersey). They also had two nights of dryland with a professional facility included in the price. TriState played alot of the teams as part of the fee, the Jr Flyers were at some of the same tournaments getting the same exposure for extra money. I dropped my son off and all I had to give him is some food money for himself, nothing more.
I do agree it is saturated with teams but so is AAA teams in the area at most levels. But you can't say Midget hockey is the right answer for everyone because of what 1 of the 3 teams is doing and the cost associated.
VFMM worked well for Lasalle players, didn't work out that great for non Lasalle players. Down time due to Lasalle things being priority, big gaps with no practices for the non Lasalle kids.
Team Comcast had trouble getting the team to show up, even had to hold extended tryouts.
It's nice the kids and the families have options to try and make it to the next level. Following PIAA rules will not get kids to the next level in hockey like every other sport. The system is not setup that way, even in MA,MN and MI. Those area are fortunate to have tons of local DIV1 hockey programs to come watch the kids, they also have many good JR hockey leagues in the area for kids to move onto. The Jr teams also have the ability to have this kids play without the extra costs or troubles incurred with moving a kid into the area. (Depending on league and what they cover in costs, finding a billet family and issues that can arise with a kid on his own away from family)
Originally posted by CarlWood: 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.
Carl, I agree with you. Do the players in Minnesota and Massachusetts leave? I think PIAA sanctioning will improve the sport.
Kids in MN, MI and MA have tons of local DIV1 schools there watching them. Kids here don't have that, and many kids head to Juniors before college. The kids also have the luxury of many top junior programs local watching 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.
I agree with whatthepuck on this a good junior or even midget AAA team and high school hockey weighs heavy on a kid mentally and physically, with school ontop of this and all the travel back and forth.
1)If PIAA managed the sport there would be three classifications AAA,AA,A based upon High School Boys attendance. East would be playing Latrobe HS at AA this weekend as the schools are similar in size.
True, But by PIAA and PIHL standards Malvern would probably be AA and HGP and Germantown Academy would be 'A', that would certainly put a new spin on things.
Posts: 959 | Location: Philly | Registered: 11 September 2006
1)If PIAA managed the sport there would be three classifications AAA,AA,A based upon High School Boys attendance. East would be playing Latrobe HS at AA this weekend as the schools are similar in size.
True, But by PIAA and PIHL standards Malvern would probably be AA and HGP and Germantown Academy would be 'A', that would certainly put a new spin on things.
So you could lose some old time rivalries with the PIAA adoption locally? Sounds like a negative.
Not neccasarily. AAA, AA and A classifications are for playoff purposes. They could still play each other in the regular season as does the Central league. The Central league has AA, AAA and AAAA teams that all compete against each other during the season in other sports.
Posts: 959 | Location: Philly | Registered: 11 September 2006
