I have nothing against club hockey. There are many parts of the country where it is the only model that makes any sense. You need a critical mass of players in one area for the HS model to work at all, because you can't travel hundreds of miles every other weekend to play several games. You have to be able to have two teams play on a Tuesday or Thursday evening and not miss much school before or after.
Still, I don't think HS sports are dying. Much as we love hockey, there is more pressure to make it big in sports like football and basketball. If high school athletics was going to die, it should die there first. I don't see any indication that it is.
The edge that HS sports have over club sports is more people care about who wins or loses. Club sports are built around developing individuals. That's fine. But it produces a situation where some of the best players for that age group can get together and play on a weekend, and hardly anyone cares. Even the 30 parents in the stands are mostly interested in how much their son or daughter gets to play and how he or she performs. For pure entertainment value, give me a HS section final between less-talented teams in a full building every time over watching Shattuck play Balmoral Hall or the Pacific Steelers take on NAHA. Similarly, I'd rather watch an NCAA game where the teams might have less talent but there is something tangible on the line rather than see the US and Canada play in Four Nations.
Others feel differently. I can understand that. But it doesn't make one model better than another. They are just trying to achieve different things for different groups of athletes.