Corsi

If the discussion is still about players from Pittsburgh going to Barons, that is a 2hr drive depending on where in the Pittsburgh region you are coming from. Not all the players from Pittsburgh that are going up there are going to billet, some have the ability and the willingness to do that drive. Believe me, I've heard of parents driving what people would consider "crazy" distances to give their kids opportunities that were not available to them in other areas.

From what I understand it is not mandatory but it is highly encouraged for the boys teams. The girls seems to operate slightly differently, but I have heard from a parent that has a girl playing there that they are also highly encouraged to do Excel as well.

I heard something very similar.

The key, is having a parent/player education program in place when players are just beginning to enter into playing hockey. In my opinion, there is no harm in sharing with parents at the 8U and 10U levels information about what the hockey "path" is and what the odds are of their player reaching Junior, D1, etc. It is the organizations and coaches that do not do this that are doing a disservice to people. For better or worse, hockey is not structured like baseball, football, or basketball which are what most parents think of when it comes to youth sports. As far as the "too much travel hockey", there is no choice, but to travel. There are not rinks in every neighborhood like baseball fields or basketball courts. Hockey has always required more travel than "traditional" sports because of a smaller population and the scarcity of facilities. I would think if this was a different region of the country or Canada there would be more options to "stay local", that being said I feel like the issue isn't the travel, but the shear number of games some teams play. Some travel teams are playing 50-60 games and then the same players are also playing 20 PIHL games, so these are 14-19 year old's playing somewhere in the ballpark of 70-80 games and that does not include 2/3 practices per week for each team.

The former '09 team split up between Preds and Allegheny Badgers. I don't believe any of those players are coming back, so not sure where they are going to get the players to fill an '09 team.

That does nothing to advance what this discussion has been about... The argument was never that there are not quality players at the D2 level, it was that those players numbers are inflated because of the competition level at that division. The way that I've understood what has been argued is that the D2 players point totals would regress towards the mean when faced with a higher level of competition. It is nearly impossible to compare player stats across levels. This whole thing reminds of when I coached and parents would be telling me how good a player is by quoting the number of goals, or points, a player has (all of which where always outrageous numbers) but then when I would look into what level the player was playing at I almost always found out they were doing it on a team playing at a low level of competition. The point of reference is what is most important in a discussion like this.

OK... so back to the Stellar 6 discussion, would the best player(s) at D2 put up similar numbers against AA competition if they are still on their D2 team and playing at that level? I feel like that is the question that started this discussion. Based off of some of the responses, unless the player(s) in question are good enough to carry a team, my instinct is that the answer is going to be they would not.

I feel like it this is an "apples to oranges" comparison, so let's try this. I have been told that in other high school sports the teams that are co-op are placed in a division based off of the combined student bodies of the schools who compete on that team (this was in relation to boys lacrosse). I am going to venture a guess that this would put the majority, if not all, D2 teams into the PIHL "AAA" division. Can somebody who knows more about D2 give a guess on how they would match up with that division?

As an official, sometimes you do miss the secondary assist, when that occurs I normally ask a coach or the goal scorer something like "which d-man made the 1st pass?" or something along those lines. They are good with giving me a number 99% of the time and I have to trust that they are going to give me the correct information. I only ask if I know that there was a 2nd assist and I missed the number, I won't hand out an assist just because a kid skates up to me and claims to have made a pass. If teams want to send in stats corrections, so be it. I'll be the first one to admit that I'm not perfect but I can say that I do the best job that I can when I'm out there. I always wanted my son to get credit for points when he deserved it back when he played so I make it a point to give these kids the same credit today.

This breakdown of US Junior seems correct. As far as having players go to Junior for a year or two following their HS graduation does make some sense. Hockey is what's considered a "late specialization" sport, which means that players don't reach their peak until mid 20's. This is compared to "early specialization" sports like figure skating and gymnastics (mid/late teens). It only makes sense that college coaches would be looking for players who are physically, mentally, and emotionally more mature than a 17 or 18 year old who is just coming out of high school and is probably living life on their own for the first time ever. With the players staying home and experiencing the "rites of passage" that is an individual player's decision. Historically, the registration numbers for USA Hockey tend to begin to slide around ages 14-16. The theory has usually been that players and their families are making the choice that the expense and time commitment is out weighed by the desire to do things like hangout with friends or significant others, have a job, party, etc. As long as organizations are up front with players and families about what the expectations are and what sacrifices may have to be made, I don't see a problem.

Really, "the ultimate consequence", actually that's incorrect. The lowest consequence for a spear is the call which was made, a 5 minute major and a game misconduct. The "ultimate consequence" escalates to a match penalty. Yes, "everyone in attendance was dumbfounded" might be correct because they were watching the play up ice as opposed to away from the puck. The rear official that made the call is 100% doing the job that he is out there for, which is to be especially vigilant for penalties which occur away from the play. Regardless of if the spear was "violent" or "soft", a spear is a spear.

You forgot wasting your money and "drinking the Kool-Aid"!

I agree with the premise that good players are found one way or another, but I would argue that each of the "low level AAA teams" you are referencing have a few players (2-4) that could play for a 30 "AAA" team and contribute (not sure where your cut off is for "low level"). Those kids that are playing at the "AAA" level have a better chance of "being found" than players at "AA" simply because the events they attend are usually attended by other "AAA" programs which lend themselves to being watched by more eyes than a "AA" or "A" event.

My response was to this "I feel like it should be the other way around. Any responsible HS coach should advise his players to avoid that train wreck A chase." The "I feel like it should be the other way around." is what my post was trying to point out. Players and families, for the most part put their priority on the travel/amateur team over their PIHL team, because of the difference in level of play. I agree with you that there is value in having players participate in both.