2009-2010 Top U19 Teams

[notfromaroundhere]

Re: 2009-2010 Top U19 Teams

I get way to side tracked from what it is I’m actually trying to say when notfromaroundhere keeps knit picking the tiniest most irrelevant parts of my posts or responding with so what your saying is you hate women’s hockey or education or community service basically every time.

Oh, blame me because you can't have the patience to clearly spell out how you think womens hockey should be run and what impact that would have on the existing structure. Blame me because you continue to misrepresent the actual issues that the rest of us were discussing before you came in here with "the" fix for women's hockey which I've already thoroughly dismissed as impractical (putting up your Chinese walls around "clubs" in effect puts players from non-traditional hockey areas at an even greater disadvantage for hockey opportunities than they are today - not a way to build womens hockey!) for the people who need the rules made consistent.

What I'm saying is that you do not know enough about how hockey runs other than in your small section of the country and don't realize that "one size does NOT fit all" with regards to how teams are formed and organize themselves for fair competition across the nation. The fact is that hockey organizes itself differently in different districts based upon traditions that vary from one region to another. Trying to say "all HS hockey teams should only compete agains other HS hockey programs for championships and all Prep hockey teams should only compete against Prep hockey teams, leaving club teams only to play against club teams, completely ignores the fact that in some regions (Minnesota) HS hockey is much stronger than in NE where Prep is stronger than HS and most other regions where club hockey is the dominant form with minimal (if any) HS or Prep hockey.

When you build your Chinese walls around these structures and make them compete for a National title based upon their structure, you in effect remove the ability of the best teams to compete at the highest level based upon traditions that USA Hockey National cannot control. With your 3 divisions of hockey (HS, Prep, Club) you ensure that Minnesota will win the HS National Championship every year, NAHA and Shattuck will dominate Prep hockey Championships, and Assabet, PB, Little Caesars and the like will not have the distinctions of having necessarily defeated the best hockey teams out there, watering down what now is the best opportunity to see the teams that play together regularly for a meaningful USA Hockey sponsored title.

This will ultimately weaken all 3 divisions of hockey as you see it. HS teams won't want to travel across country to get their rear ends handed to them by the Minnesota teams who keep their best talent playing in HS hockey. NE Prep teams will have no reason to travel and disrupt their education and spring sport schedules (which is more important to them than a national title) to get humiliated by SSM and NAHA which have much looser limits on seasonal participation. And this definitely won't settle the club issue of which hockey association can develop the best all-star team, when they cannot settle the issue with the best prep schools (SSM and NAHA).

Bottom line, your 3 division idea based upon orgainizational structure of sponsor will destroy meaningful championships at all 3 divisions.

Need I be any clearer.

No, you need to be clearer as to why this makes championships more meaningful and is better for development of players and the sport.

For someone who has received a prep school education and is a regular at an Ivy school, you certainly don't collect and organize your thoughts coherently on a public discussion board.

 

[hcky85]

Re: 2009-2010 Top U19 Teams

Bottom line, your 3 division idea based upon orgainizational structure of sponsor will destroy meaningful championships at all 3 divisions.

Need I be any clearer.

No, you need to be clearer as to why this makes championships more meaningful and is better for development

I’ve never spoken of such 3 divisions that you speak of.

All I’ve actually said is that boarding schools aren’t a youth hockey team.

 

[notfromaroundhere]

Re: 2009-2010 Top U19 Teams

I’ve never spoken of such 3 divisions that you speak of.

All I’ve actually said is that boarding schools aren’t a youth hockey team.

Here is where you talked about a national prep-school tournament - one of your other divisions that shouldn't be allowed to compete with the "club" division.

You seem to have a short memory or a distinct ability to not understand what you write or you don't write what you mean.

I’m fixated on school and team integration because playing for your school and playing for your club team are two completely different experiences. Unless two separate leagues are created there will never be a competitive national prep school tournament. No top New England boarding schools will ever go to nationals if their players are being forced to choose one roster to be on.

It seems like Shattuck, NSA and a few others are the only teams actually preventing this from happening because they rather play in the more competitive youth division and aren’t happy with being a prep school. But that’s just it they all are a prep school. So I do favor the exclusion of two or so prep teams (not a 1/5 of US players) from the u-19 division so that an actual competitive prep division can exist. Nothing’s stopping these players (40 to be exact) from signing up for a club team and being able to compete in youth hockey nationals. But these two teams are stopping about 21 NEPSAC schools and 6 or 7 other boarding schools from being able to play in an actual national tournament for prep schools (which seems to be more like 1/5 of US players).

Just start a program near these schools that’s not affiliated with any academy that provides room and board for players. It might not be just that easy, but if it’s such a big deal that these players can’t compete in youth nationals then you’d think someone would be willing to go through the trouble of starting one up. Because it is youth hockey that they want to compete with, I don’t think making them sign up for a youth hockey team is that nonsensical.

 

[hcky85]

Re: 2009-2010 Top U19 Teams

Blame me because you continue to misrepresent the actual issues that the rest of us were discussing before you came in here with "the" fix for women's hockey which I've already thoroughly dismissed as impractical (putting up your Chinese walls around "clubs" in effect puts players from non-traditional hockey areas at an even greater disadvantage for hockey opportunities than they are today - not a way to build womens hockey!) for the people who need the rules made consistent.

Still don’t think I have “the” fix, I’m arguing that there has to be “a” fix that works better than what’s in place now.

My actual reasoning has nothing to do with prep schools offering more than just athletics or some kids being more fortunate than others. All that was brought up from your efforts to stir things up.

So really my point is that Nationals are such a big deal because it’s the only time that actual youth teams get the opportunity to play other youth teams from all over the country. With the exception of maybe going to the Polar Bear tourney, or some other one, they just play the teams in their own league that are from the same state or region.

I don’t see the purpose of having schools like NAHA, SSM, and NSA go to nationals when they already schedule to play each other, and almost every other tier I u19 team that will be there, during their actual season. There’s literally no need for them to be in this division when all of them could host their own invitationals that’d be more competitive than nationals.

They already play the best teams across the u.s. and canada, play in invite only tourneys, and get seen by plenty of scouts. There’s not really much more that could come out of this besides being able to call themselves youth national champions. But that label still wouldn’t give these schools and their players anything that they don’t already have. So why ruin it for youth hockey programs (that might possibly be less talented) by letting them in?

If all of these schools are allowed to compete, the tournament might become more competitive. But you’re doing so while jeopardizing the one major significance of what makes the experience at nationals so inimitable.

 

[hcky85]

Re: 2009-2010 Top U19 Teams

(putting up your Chinese walls around "clubs" in effect puts players from non-traditional hockey areas at an even greater disadvantage for hockey opportunities than they are today - not a way to build womens hockey!)

Funny. Dictatorship to democracy, quite the transition.

That sharp of a change in political views typically takes years or even generations, but look at you, doing it all in just a couple of weeks. I’m proud of you.

 

[notfromaroundhere]

Re: 2009-2010 Top U19 Teams

Funny. Dictatorship to democracy, quite the transition.

That sharp of a change in political views typically takes years or even generations, but look at you, doing it all in just a couple of weeks. I’m proud of you.

Funny, the etimology of "Chinese Walls" has nothing to do with the politics of China or any other nations. It actually originated on Wall Street around the time of the great depression and dealt with artificial barriers put up between sections of financial organizations that could have conflicting interests. The reference to Chinese wall referred to the great wall of China, which for a time actually prevented something from happening, but now is a false barrier between things that really doesn't mean anything.

You need to do a little more reading before misinterpreting someone else's writings.

 

[notfromaroundhere]

Re: 2009-2010 Top U19 Teams

Still don’t think I have “the” fix, I’m arguing that there has to be “a” fix that works better than what’s in place now.

My actual reasoning has nothing to do with prep schools offering more than just athletics or some kids being more fortunate than others. All that was brought up from your efforts to stir things up.

So really my point is that Nationals are such a big deal because it’s the only time that actual youth teams get the opportunity to play other youth teams from all over the country. With the exception of maybe going to the Polar Bear tourney, or some other one, they just play the teams in their own league that are from the same state or region.

I don’t see the purpose of having schools like NAHA, SSM, and NSA go to nationals when they already schedule to play each other, and almost every other tier I u19 team that will be there, during their actual season. There’s literally no need for them to be in this division when all of them could host their own invitationals that’d be more competitive than nationals.

They already play the best teams across the u.s. and canada, play in invite only tourneys, and get seen by plenty of scouts. There’s not really much more that could come out of this besides being able to call themselves youth national champions. But that label still wouldn’t give these schools and their players anything that they don’t already have. So why ruin it for youth hockey programs (that might possibly be less talented) by letting them in?

If all of these schools are allowed to compete, the tournament might become more competitive. But you’re doing so while jeopardizing the one major significance of what makes the experience at nationals so inimitable.

By excluding the best teams by implementing rules that have nothing to do with hockey (what kind of school a child attends) you have diluted what is otherwise an OPEN National Championship.

In case you didn't notice, USA Hockey has a Tier II National Championship that allows limits on how a team can be organized. The intent here is to allow the Tier I Championship to be WIDE OPEN.

I agree that NAHA SSM and NSA should be excluded from the Tier II National Championship. And clubbing baby seals should be banned as well.

 

[hcky85]

Re: 2009-2010 Top U19 Teams

Here is where you talked about a national prep-school tournament - one of your other divisions that shouldn't be allowed to compete with the "club" division.

You seem to have a short memory or a distinct ability to not understand what you write or you don't write what you mean.

I don't think boarding schools should be able to compete for the youth top tier national title. I still think that post says pretty much what I'm saying now, but that's just me.

I might speak of possible benefits or effects that could come out of establishing two distinct divisions. But you’re professing these as my reasoning for why I think boarding schools should be in a different division, even though that’s not my intent.

 

[notfromaroundhere]

Re: 2009-2010 Top U19 Teams

I don't think boarding schools should be able to compete for the youth top tier national title. I still think that post says pretty much what I'm saying now, but that's just me.

I might speak of possible benefits or effects that could come out of establishing two distinct divisions. But you’re professing these as my reasoning for why I think boarding schools should be in a different division, even though that’s not my intent.

Weaseling out of your words?

If you seek to divide the competition, you are creating divisions by definition.

Your debating skills are weak, oh highly educated one.

 

[Trillium]

Re: 2009-2010 Top U19 Teams

What I'm saying is that you do not know enough about how hockey runs other than in your small section of the country and don't realize that "one size does NOT fit all" with regards to how teams are formed and organize themselves for fair competition across the nation. The fact is that hockey organizes itself differently in different districts based upon traditions that vary from one region to another. Trying to say "all HS hockey teams should only compete agains other HS hockey programs for championships and all Prep hockey teams should only compete against Prep hockey teams, leaving club teams only to play against club teams, completely ignores the fact that in some regions (Minnesota) HS hockey is much stronger than in NE where Prep is stronger than HS and most other regions where club hockey is the dominant form with minimal (if any) HS or Prep hockey.

When you build your Chinese walls around these structures and make them compete for a National title based upon their structure, you in effect remove the ability of the best teams to compete at the highest level based upon traditions that USA Hockey National cannot control. With your 3 divisions of hockey (HS, Prep, Club) you ensure that Minnesota will win the HS National Championship every year, NAHA and Shattuck will dominate Prep hockey Championships, and Assabet, PB, Little Caesars and the like will not have the distinctions of having necessarily defeated the best hockey teams out there, watering down what now is the best opportunity to see the teams that play together regularly for a meaningful USA Hockey sponsored title.

This will ultimately weaken all 3 divisions of hockey as you see it. HS teams won't want to travel across country to get their rear ends handed to them by the Minnesota teams who keep their best talent playing in HS hockey. NE Prep teams will have no reason to travel and disrupt their education and spring sport schedules (which is more important to them than a national title) to get humiliated by SSM and NAHA which have much looser limits on seasonal participation. And this definitely won't settle the club issue of which hockey association can develop the best all-star team, when they cannot settle the issue with the best prep schools (SSM and NAHA).

Bottom line, your 3 division idea based upon orgainizational structure of sponsor will destroy meaningful championships at all 3 divisions.

Need I be any clearer.

.

Nice crystal. Very compelling, except for someone who just likes to argue.

 

[Trillium]

Re: 2009-2010 Top U19 Teams

Funny, the etimology of "Chinese Walls" has nothing to do with the politics of China or any other nations. It actually originated on Wall Street around the time of the great depression and dealt with artificial barriers put up between sections of financial organizations that could have conflicting interests. The reference to Chinese wall referred to the great wall of China, which for a time actually prevented something from happening, but now is a false barrier between things that really doesn't mean anything.

You need to do a little more reading before misinterpreting someone else's writings.

Funny, I didn't need some fancy Ivy League education to know this. Perhaps 85 just needs a little more real world experience.

 

[IceIsNice]

Re: 2009-2010 Top U19 Teams

And clubbing baby seals should be banned as well.

Darn...there go my afternoon plans!

 

[hcky85]

Re: 2009-2010 Top U19 Teams

Funny, the etimology of "Chinese Walls" has nothing to do with the politics of China or any other nations. It actually originated on Wall Street around the time of the great depression and dealt with artificial barriers put up between sections of financial organizations that could have conflicting interests. The reference to Chinese wall referred to the great wall of China, which for a time actually prevented something from happening, but now is a false barrier between things that really doesn't mean anything.

You need to do a little more reading before misinterpreting someone else's writings.

And again, another comment of yours that gives us a tainted view of what it is your trying to explain.

Actually Chinese Walls have never been an “artificial” barrier. In financials they’re used because there ARE conflicting interests between different sectors, not because there could hypothetically maybe be conflicting interests that might arise at some point. These barriers might not be tangible (almost like say a division in sports), but they most definitely still are real.

The ironic thing is, you’re purposely using the term in the way it’s used in financial organizations. But that’s the only time when the term “Chinese Walls” actually implies that the barriers are implemented with the objective to prevent unfair advantages form arising.

But then, anyone who reads the news might of thought you were referring to how Google just the other day decided that it no longer would censor search engines in China for the Chinese government with a huge firewall blocking searches like past democratic protests.

But my mistake. For some weird reason the first thing I thought of was what happened in the news over the past few days before going back to 1929.

 

[Trillium]

Re: 2009-2010 Top U19 Teams

Actually Chinese Walls have never been an “artificial” barrier...

Nice crystal. Very compelling, except for someone who just likes to argue.

I rest my case.

 

[notfromaroundhere]

Re: 2009-2010 Top U19 Teams

And again, another comment of yours that gives us a tainted view of what it is your trying to explain.

Actually Chinese Walls have never been an “artificial” barrier. In financials they’re used because there ARE conflicting interests between different sectors, not because there could hypothetically maybe be conflicting interests that might arise at some point. These barriers might not be tangible (almost like say a division in sports), but they most definitely still are real.

The ironic thing is, you’re purposely using the term in the way it’s used in financial organizations. But that’s the only time when the term “Chinese Walls” actually implies that the barriers are implemented with the objective to prevent unfair advantages form arising.

But then, anyone who reads the news might of thought you were referring to how Google just the other day decided that it no longer would censor search engines in China for the Chinese government with a huge firewall blocking searches like past democratic protests.

But my mistake. For some weird reason the first thing I thought of was what happened in the news over the past few days before going back to 1929.

I'm not sure why you call it tainted.

Your explanation of "Chinese Walls" in not correct. Chinese Walls is a derogatory term for barriers that are viewed by the participants as artificial constrainst of a natural flow of information or course of action to the extent that someone actually enforces it. The way you seem to explain Chinese Walls would imply that they are viewed in a positive light.

And I'm still confused as to why you introduced my politics into the "Chinese Wall" discussion. I generally don't discuss my politics online. Wouldn't want to start too heated of a discussion.

I'll still argue that separating the OPEN division of the National Championship with a Chinese Wall around school-based teams is not the best way to have a meaningful OPEN National Champion. OPEN National Championships are all about how you can develop a program to create the best team within constraints that are relevant to the sport itself.

 

[hcky85]

Re: 2009-2010 Top U19 Teams

Weaseling out of your words?

If you seek to divide the competition, you are creating divisions by definition.

Your debating skills are weak, oh highly educated one.

The thing is, I’ve never once made a statement claiming to be remotely intelligent or bragging about my education.

The only remark I did make about my education, was when I made a joke about prep schools that got people way to uptight. And I only said I went to boarding school as a response to show that I really don’t think kids who go to prep schools are all rich stuck up snobs. Then I was called out for being against an institution that fully integrates academics and athletics and personal development. And my response was intended to mean not at all, because without going to that prep school I would have never of gotten into the college I did (because I definitely was not smart enough to be able to do so on my own).

I’ve made fun of myself for being terrible at reading and writing before here. So I’m not sure why you’re acting as if I claim to be some know it all when every time I start arguing with notfromaroundhere, they actually drop their self proclaimed title of being some divine spirit of all things hockey. They’re the one claiming to know everything about hockey and all the secrets and what happens behind all closed doors.

 

[notfromaroundhere]

Re: 2009-2010 Top U19 Teams

I rest my case.

You are good!

 

[notfromaroundhere]

Re: 2009-2010 Top U19 Teams

They’re the one claiming to know everything about hockey and all the secrets and what happens behind all closed doors.

Actually that is Hux.

 

[notfromaroundhere]

Re: 2009-2010 Top U19 Teams

The thing is, I’ve never once made a statement claiming to be remotely intelligent or bragging about my education.

Enough said.

 

[hcky85]

Re: 2009-2010 Top U19 Teams

I'm not sure why you call it tainted.

Your explanation of "Chinese Walls" in not correct. Chinese Walls is a derogatory term for barriers that are viewed by the participants as artificial constrainst of a natural flow of information or course of action to the extent that someone actually enforces it. The way you seem to explain Chinese Walls would imply that they are viewed in a positive light.

And I'm still confused as to why you introduced my politics into the "Chinese Wall" discussion. I generally don't discuss my politics online. Wouldn't want to start too heated of a discussion.

I'll still argue that separating the OPEN division of the National Championship with a Chinese Wall around school-based teams is not the best way to have a meaningful OPEN National Champion. OPEN National Championships are all about how you can develop a program to create the best team within constraints that are relevant to the sport itself.

Alright, you can keep calling chinese walls what ever you’d like. I mean you do call yourself a long time hockey expert and that’s not really a big deal to me ether.

You claim letting the best teams in tier I is best for girls’ hockey. I’m saying I don’t believe that. These schools are already going to play each other and they’re already going to play the best club teams whether they’re in nationals or not. If you include these preps in tier I nationals, then your excluding the best youth teams coming out of NY, MN, and NE (although second in talent to some prep teams).

So really the only pro that would come out of letting preps compete is that one of these schools could call themselves the national champion each year. And they have better bragging rights because they beat all the best teams. (They are not better players because of it, they did not get more exposure, and they did not play better competition than what they played against during their regular season).

Cons, you’re keeping the youth programs that would of gone to nationals, if those preps weren’t allowed to compete, isolated. And by watching the Olympics you should probably be able to tell that being isolated from the best competition is no way to further the development of a youth hockey team, or youth hockey in general. (And yes, keeping these preps from nationals is not isolating them, they already play all the teams they’d be going to play without going to nationals).