Re: 2009-2010 Top U19 Teams
Why cant these top talented girls just play on a club team? It’s like if I was to be the founder of a new school called Assabet Academy, where I provided board and tutors so parents could ship their kids off to us to play hockey and we’ll guide them through their previous school’s curriculum while making our way across the continent to play against top talent. Do you really not see the unfair advantage Assabet would have over any other youth teams coming out of Mass or anywhere in the nation.
If you can’t see that there is a huge difference between Shattuck and a youth hockey program, then you have to be not from New England. Shattuck clearly is one of the most talented teams for this age group of girls, but that doesn’t mean that the entire set of rules for USA youth hockey should be interpreted so that they can compete for a youth national title.
If Shattuck or NAHA wants to compete in nationals as a youth team then have everyone sign up for a local club team. If they want to compete with other prep schools, then shorten your season and play preps from New England. If they want to continue to hands down have one of the top teams on the continent year in and year out loaded with players bound to go division 1, then they should continue to do things their own way.
But they can’t just get everything by being allowed to make themselves exceptions to the rules.
Clearly, you don't understand that Shattuck IS registered exactly like a CLUB team as far as USA Hockey goes. In fact, it is NOT registered as a HS team in the Minnesota District, where a girl can play on a HS team OR a club team BUT NOT BOTH.
No exception to the rule is necessary for Shattuck. They are a club team consisting entirely of players who attend Shattuck St. Mary school. Gilmour Academy in Ohio has the same setup and I believe NSA has gone so far as to do the same, although I haven't talked to their coaching staff to confirm.
NAHA's alleged issue with the Vermont affiliate of NE District is that the girl's residency is in question. Doesn't matter that the bulk of them spend the vast majority of the year in the state. That is their rule.
The fact that some parents choose to to send their kids off to NAHA and have the choice of following their own home school curriculum OR following NAHA's accredited curriculum is irrelevant to the discussion. Any prep team that so desired could register with USA Hockey as a club team (eligible for Nationals) if their affiliate/district allows it. Most want no part of it. Most live with the pre-post arrangement with a club team for their players who desire it. And by and large that is how Assabet, Polar Bears, Ct Stars, etc. work the game.
The Stattuck and NAHA models serve families who want their daughters to have access to an integrated educational institution and top level hockey program wrapped in one. Lots of people (ourselves included) do not live where club hockey is readily available. Minnesota IIRC has only one other club team of significance (Thoroughbreds) and it has to pull players from western Wisconsin to do as well as they do, as the local public HS hockey program is how it is done there typically because of the rules in the Minnesota District.
Look at the NAHA roster - lots of kids from places where there may not be a local club available. Same with Gilmour. NSA even has some.
The school model is actually a superior model for those who can afford it, as it has a draw to build a stable and ongoing team beyond the players currently on the roster. I learned this from the experience of having my own daughter play on a "club" team that drew players from multiple districts. You can put together a decent team for a year or 2, but without a specific ongoing program in place (like a quality school), keeping the club supplied with new talent is often difficult and usually results in failure after a few years. For those of us "notfromaroundhere", these are the only models to play top level hockey. The prep and club combination can work for some schools, but logistics was a huge challenge that we were not able to overcome, probably shortchanging our daughter on her hockey experience, but she has gotten a good education and has put together her college/hockey/other ambitions package very well without it. She however is a data point of one. Definitely not the way for most.
I'm still not sure why the whine about families who want/need to package a top level hockey/education combination. If you can afford it (we definitely could not), why not?
