What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2009-2010 Top U19 Teams

Re: 2009-2010 Top U19 Teams

All this bickering about "community" and national club teams is cute, but really, isnt' the creation of Tier II supposed to cure all of this?

Tier II in boys hockey means community. Tier I in boys hockey means the best 20 players you can find. If a Vermont Tier I boys team can have out of staters, then USA Hockey should force Vermont to have the same rule for Tier I girls. Can't we just all agree with this and move on?

By the way, didn't someone sue USAH and Illinois over this type of gender discrimination?
 
Re: 2009-2010 Top U19 Teams

Let's be honest. 5 years ago NAHA probably needed to go to Nationals. Now it wouldn't be in the top 5 of the competitive tournaments they play in. Half of the US U18 team this year came from the league they started just 3 years ago... The longer they stay out the less NAHA will need USA's nationals, they'll just end up doing something else....better.
 
Re: 2009-2010 Top U19 Teams

westcoast said:
Let's be honest. 5 years ago NAHA probably needed to go to Nationals. Now it wouldn't be in the top 5 of the competitive tournaments they play in. Half of the US U18 team this year came from the league they started just 3 years ago... The longer they stay out the less NAHA will need USA's nationals, they'll just end up doing something else....better.
Click to expand...

Totally agree that the "National" tournament is no longer the most competitive tournament. I also agree that NAHA plays in many tournaments with a better field of teams throughout the year.

The main issue is, the exclusion of NAHA at this tournament because of their location and program, while similar programs are allowed to participate.
 
Re: 2009-2010 Top U19 Teams

OnMAA said:
I guess some people did not read my post from yesterday......

...SSM and NSA are registered as club/national bound teams
Click to expand...

Nope I did read it. I’m saying I don’t think an academy team should be able to register as a youth team. Room and board, tuition, and financial aid are terms that should never be used when discussing youth hockey.

I understand that Shattuck and NAHA do not have any other local prep school teams to play against. But that does not make them a youth club team. During the year they can play against whom ever it is they want, but they shouldn’t be able to take any championship they want as well.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2009-2010 Top U19 Teams

IceIsNice said:
LOL, this is one of the same dudes who was Digit bashing on the Brown thread...I love it. No, I won't stop. Bring it, baby! Come and try to take the belt any time you like.

As for the whole NAHA debate, it isn't about being pro-NAHA. It isn't about which way the thing gets decided. Tell NAHA to take a hike if you want, that's fine. Just please tell SSM and NSA and anyone else to take the same hike. Fair is Fair.

"saving the world one whoopie pie at a time" - Hux
Click to expand...

Uh alright, here goes it I guess.

First, a handful of users on this forum have a very hard time distinguishing the difference between the power in numbers of different users agreeing and the power in numbers of the amount of posts being made by the same small group of people.

So the majority of posts on this site might be in agreement with you, but that doesn’t mean the majority of the people reading this forum are too.
 
Re: 2009-2010 Top U19 Teams

IceIsNice said:
I think it's great that the Constitution's founding fathers gave each state the opportunity to approve their own laws and legislation subject to broad constitutional guidelines and highly general federal laws. This has enabled the states to perform as little laboratories in trialing various social practices to hopefully arrive at a best practice.

I just don't think this philosophy should apply to a national sports organization that offers a national championship tournament. "Little League" for example has very standard rules for how each charter is established and run, and for how that charter's representative team is chosen. The rules are the same whether you live in Red Wing or the Bronx (okay, fine bad example.....) err... East L.A. I don't believe Vermont should be allowed to administer rules that are grossly out sync with all other participating states and districts. It smells of old school, back room "fixing", by good ol' boys with an ax to grind.
Click to expand...

Does anyone know how many other states actually stand by the same rule as Vermont? I know MN and NY clearly don’t. But since prep schools playing as a youth team isn’t an issue in any of the other 48 states right now, maybe USA hockey isn’t stepping in because the country as a whole doesn’t believe they should be.

I wouldn’t be so quick to call for USA hockey to take the democratic approach of stepping in and enforcing what the people of all 50 states actually want, it might end up backfiring on Shattuck and NSA.
 
Re: 2009-2010 Top U19 Teams

IceIsNice said:
Now, as far as whether they are included or not, this is not a case of 6 kids from one town getting together with 6 kids from the next town to beef up some town team. These girls make a sacrifice that lasts a full academic year, and so their de facto "residence" becomes their school. Therefore, I say reward the extreme commitment, and let them in. After all, a championship should be about beating the best. Imagine an Olympics that didn't include Team USA or Team Canada? What would that be worth?
Click to expand...

You're right, we’re not talking about whether or not Adam Banks should be able to play on the Hawks or be forced to play under Gordon Bombay with the rest of district 5. But a boarding school should not be able to recruit nationally and be able to put a team together full of Adam Banks’ and then put that team in the same division as district 5.

How could you do that to Charlie… do you not have a heart?

IceIsNice said:
Okay, okay, don't get me started on that again. Oh, but, Team USA and Team Canada centralize, and actually practice together as a team, that's why they can fricken kill every other team in the world. But, do the Olympics find a reason to exclude them? No! They follow the rules, produce their team, and come to compete because....they are the best from their particular part of the world.
Click to expand...

USA and Canada kill teams because they have a ton of advantages, but nonetheless these advantages aren’t unfair. All countries have to abide by the same citizenship requirements bottom line.

Public high schools and clubs should be in the same league not boarding schools. This isn’t a matter of state lines; it’s not even a matter of regional lines or national lines now. There is a huge unfair advantage with boarding schools being allowed here.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2009-2010 Top U19 Teams

IceIsNice said:
These girls make a sacrifice that lasts a full academic year, and so their de facto "residence" becomes their school. Therefore, I say reward the extreme commitment, and let them in.
Click to expand...

If you’re a parent or player and are willing to drive three hours a day so your kid can play on Assabet instead of some crummy local team up in Vermont, then I think that is far more of a commitment then getting to go to a prep school. And it’s a commitment that is much more deserving of being rewarded too. Getting to go to a boarding school is a privilege, not some ongoing testament of dedication that exhausts the player and their family. Not everyone can afford the price tag on prep schools and the advantages, both athletically and academically, that come with it.

That’s why, realistically, boarding schools are not a youth hockey program. It’s not about top talent it’s about unfair advantages in a youth sport. I mean can’t those snotty privileged prep kids have their parents buy them a different national title?
 
Last edited:
Re: 2009-2010 Top U19 Teams

hcky85 said:
Does anyone know how many other states actually stand by the same rule as Vermont? I know MN and NY clearly don’t. But since prep schools playing as a youth team isn’t an issue in any of the other 48 states right now, maybe USA hockey isn’t stepping in because the country as a whole doesn’t believe they should be.

I wouldn’t be so quick to call for USA hockey to take the democratic approach of stepping in and enforcing what the people of all 50 states actually want, it might end up backfiring on Shattuck and NSA.
Click to expand...

None that I know of are as limiting as Vermont. As I have mentioned, my daughter has played on teams in 6 different districts, half of those districts while not being a resident of the district. Once being a resident of one district, schooling in a second district, an playing in a 3rd.

Most places it doesn't makes sense to limit the geography, as many towns are border towns and don't have enough players on either side of the border to have their own teams.

If you wanted to have a girls hockey club in Westchester County NY (a very well-to-do suburban area outside of NYC for those of you not familiar), you could easily draw girls from areas of NJ and CT not even 15 miles away from your home, representing 3 different districts.

So most affiliates and districts recognize these issues and allow "outsiders" on the team, even if the locals do not make up the majority. Some have talked about having mileage rules (within 100 miles of the district) - don't know how far that has gotten.

Really, you are confusing the issue. Where you go to school is irrellevent. It is about residency (parental for the most part except for 18 year olds). Theoretically speaking, I believe if NAHA wanted to field a team of 18-year-old PGs, all could as adults change their residency to VT (now being emancipated), file tax returns (not as dependents of their parents) and there wouldn't be a darn thing that the Vermont affiliate could do to keep them from competeing. 19U is an odd duck in "youth" and "girls" hockey that allows adults who don't live with their parents (as long as they don't play NCAA or ACHA hockey) to play with minors. They could very well be living on their own with a job and legally be playing 19U hockey.
 
Re: 2009-2010 Top U19 Teams

hcky85 said:
If you’re a parent or player and are willing to drive three hours a day so your kid can play on Assabet instead of some crummy local team up in Vermont, then I think that is far more of a commitment then getting to go to a prep school. And it’s a commitment that is much more deserving of being rewarded too. Getting to go to a boarding school is a privilege, not some ongoing testament of dedication that exhausts the player and their family. Not everyone can afford the price tag on prep schools and the advantages, both athletically and academically, that come with it.

That’s why, realistically, boarding schools are not a youth hockey program. It’s not about top talent it’s about unfair advantages in a youth sport. I mean can’t those snotty privileged prep kids have their parents buy them a different national title?
Click to expand...

Actually, I've heard plenty of people call SSM a hockey club with a boarding school attached in prep circles.

So, if I am reading you correctly, playing out of your district is just fine by you as long as you go to school someplace other than where you play hockey.

Sounds kind of convoluted to me.
 
Re: 2009-2010 Top U19 Teams

hcky85 said:
That’s why, realistically, boarding schools are not a youth hockey program. It’s not about top talent it’s about unfair advantages in a youth sport. I mean can’t those snotty privileged prep kids have their parents buy them a different national title?
Click to expand...

Excuse me for having a snotty prep kid. :mad:

I'll have you understand that I am in the 15% marginal tax bracket.

Please move your misguided attitude about who plays prep hockey to the USCHO Cafe.
 
Re: 2009-2010 Top U19 Teams

notfromaroundhere said:
Actually, I've heard plenty of people call SSM a hockey club with a boarding school attached in prep circles.

So, if I am reading you correctly, playing out of your district is just fine by you as long as you go to school someplace other than where you play hockey.

Sounds kind of convoluted to me.
Click to expand...

My point is a kid who lives in Florida, and has a private jet, with their own private pilot and everything and they want to fly out to mass to play for Assabet that’s theirs and their parents' prerogative. Does that kid have an advantage over another kid who lives in the same state and is stuck on their not so competitive local team? Of course, but there are always going to be advantages no matter what a particular set of rules are.

I don’t think anyone’s mad that the current USA rules allow a kid to have an advantage over another one. The problem is they are allowing an entire team to have an unfair advantage over all other teams.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top