Sleepy Hollow/Irvington moves to Division II

May

26

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 26th, 2009 at 10:22 am by Harold Gutmann.  Print |  Email

57 Responses to “Sleepy Hollow/Irvington moves to Division II”

1. Tiger stripes May 26th, 2009 at 10:47 am

   The number dividing the classifications should be at 999. The two smallest enrollment schools Pelham and Byram Hills are already in the same division as some schools almost twice their size. That cannot be right

2. should be May 26th, 2009 at 10:55 am

   It should probably be that Yorktown Ossining and the two merged programs Sleepy/Irvington and Somers/JFK should be in the division 1 section. Have no clue as to why those four are down in d 2

3. fanotgame May 26th, 2009 at 1:43 pm

   Lets not get too crazy over the DI/DII split. Two of the three smallest DI teams (Mamo, Suffern) are perennial favorites in the section and state. Two of the four smallest DII teams (Rye, Pelham)have collected the past 4 DII sectional titles. It is a little crazy to think Mamo is 33 kids from DII, though.

4. LoHud Hockey May 26th, 2009 at 1:58 pm

   I think if the state does draw a hard line, it will be at 1000 students. If you look at enrollment numbers for hockey-playing schools across the state, a line at 1000 puts half the schools in D1 and half in D2 (give or take a few, but the numbers fluctuate year-over-year anyway, so some teams may bounce back & forth between the two). I think what the section has been trying to do since eliminating the “declare whether you want to go D1 or D2 before the season starts and anyone can play in either division” rule a few years back is to divide the section in half based on enrollment. Last year it was 16 D1 and 13 D2 because of the Nyack/TZ merger taking two D2 teams and putting them in D1. Looks like they have corrected that this year by moving the smallest of the D1 teams (SH/I) into D2.

   As for being in a division with schools twice their size, that has never slowed Pelham down in the past, consistently putting a quality team on the ice while facing teams like Suffern, Mamk, Mahopac, RTH, WP and other D1-sized schools. If you want to use that argument, NewRo & North Rockland are both over twice the size of Mamk, but they play in the same division. That’s never been an issue, so why should it with Pelham?

   And as has been mentioned on this blog a million times, the size of the school’s enrollment means very little when it comes to hockey. In other sports like football it means a lot because with 2,000+ students, it’s easy to find a kid who is familiar with the sport and knows how to throw or catch or block, and can pick up the sport relatively quickly. With hockey, it’s extremely difficult to pick up the sport for the first time in jr. high or high school and excel. The hockey-playing enrollment number in Pelham is probably just as big as it is in NewRo, even though there are four times as many Huguenots as there are Pelicans in Southern Westchester.

5. LoHud Hockey May 26th, 2009 at 3:30 pm

   fanotgame-

   Lets take that one step further. Now with the death of the power league system, lets reflect on past champions. Three of the bottom four teams (enrollment-wise) in D1 for our section are Suffern, Mamaroneck, & Clarkstown North. The last time someone other than one of those three won the league 1 title was in the 1989-90 season. That year, Suffern & Clarkstown South were co-champs. The last time someone other than one of those three won the league 1 crown outright was in 1986-87 when your Garnets (the fourth smallest D2 school) won it.

   The last time one of those three did not win the Section 1 Division 1 championship was the 1987-88 season when Rye beat Suffern in the section championship game (although as the loser of the section championship game, Suffern got to go to the D2 states where they lost in the D2 state championship game).

6. fanotgame May 26th, 2009 at 5:03 pm

   Lohud, teams like Masenna (enrollment less than 800) are DI mainstays. Don’t they have the most DI state championships? I think I posed this question before: If the state has a hard enrollment cutoff at 1,000, will Masenna opt to “play up” in DI, or opt to (or be forced to)play with similar sized schools in the DII state playoffs? We may find out in a year or two.

7. fanotgame May 26th, 2009 at 5:21 pm

   Lohud,

   Just searched thru your website and saw that small enrollment schools Pelham and Rye are the only DII sectional winners the last 5 seasons. Also, as recently as 2001, the largest enrollment school in the section (New Rochelle-approx. 5X the size of Pelham) was the DII winner. What was that all about?

8. LoHud Hockey May 26th, 2009 at 10:49 pm

   The rules as to who is what division in the section have changed a few times over the years. What they did for a long time was to allow everyone to declare whether they wanted to be D1 or D2 at the start of the season, and every team had the option regardless of enrollment. There was even a third option of going into the “Local” tournament, which consisted of teams that knew they were not going to have a chance at making it to states, so they had their own set of playoffs, with the winner not advancing to anything beyond that tourney. Suffern was extremely dominant back then (unlike now where there is much more parity and they are in a pack at the top rather than up there by themselves), and everyone declared D2 to avoid them. So Suffern (who would have handily won the tournament no matter how many section 1 teams were thrown at them) were the D1 champs and Mamk, CN, CS, Rye, Pelham, NewRo, etc. battled it out for the D2 title. The only exception to this was White Plains. After a while they realized that if they declared D1 they would need to pull off one upset and they’re in the state tourney as opposed to declaring D2 and while the competition would have been a little easier, they would need to pull off 3 or 4 upsets in the tournament. The strategy never paid off for them as they always lost to Suffern (having never picked up a W against them until this past season), but kudos to them for the effort.

   There have always been large schools playing D2 over the years (See MW’s state title in ‘07) so NewRo in D2 isn’t out of the ordinary. Yes, there is a big disparity in numbers between the top of D2 and the bottom in our section, but you’re always going to have that. I think the system we have in place right now is a good one. Remember, not all sections have it right, though. Look at Rome Free Academy, with 2 D1 state titles under their belt and a 2009-10 enrollment of 1276 (which would make them the 8th largest in Section 1), they are allowed to play in D2.

   To answer your other question, I don’t know if they will allow teams to “play up” if they are D2 sized and want to play D1. Massena is a great example. Their 09-10 enrollment is 672 making them the second largest school in Section 10 (by 8 students), but well below the cutoff of 1000 to be D1. Meanwhile they are arguably the most successful D1 hockey team in NYS history with five state titles and three state silver medals. It’d be a shame to bump them down to D2 and watch them roll through the competition and win the state title pretty much every year.

9. fanotgame May 27th, 2009 at 9:05 am

   Lohud, thanks for the info. As always, I become more enlightened after your response. Yes, I am well aware of MW’s DII state title in ‘07. I was in Utica to watch my Garnets get eliminated by that juggernaut.

10. great post Lohud May 27th, 2009 at 9:15 am

    Great post Lohud as usual. I differ with a few of the thoughts. I think school size matters if the hockey program is a quality program. Mamaroneck has the most players from middle school through high school. I`ll bet coaches like Schelling would love to have those numbers to choose from. While makeup of school population does play a role the larger schools have potential that smaller schools do not have. A school like Pelham or Byram Hills which are the two smallest still have basketball teams and other sports. There are only so many athletes to go around. Either way the enrollment being doubled does have value weather the hockey program benefits is up to them. I don

11. fanotgame May 27th, 2009 at 9:37 am

    Lohud, One more point about Massena. Not so sure they would have won DII states this past year. New Hartford (DII state champs) smoked Masenna 6-1 earlier in the year.

12. great post Lohud May 27th, 2009 at 9:47 am

    awesome post as usual Lohud. I differ with some of the thoughts though. Having almost double the enrollment does have value, how the hockey program uses it is up to them. Coaches need to sell their program to the kids in the school. Double the population of boys means that if Byram Hills has 100 boys the larger schools have 200. The larger schools have at least what the smaller school has plus an additional 100 potential athletes. That could make a huge difference in the age and grade factor. Many of the larger schools have the luxury of having an exclusive upper classman team. The smaller schools with smaller populations will never have that. Mamaroneck has the most players from middle school through high school and I`ll bet Coach Schelling would love to have that amount of players to choose from every year. Larger school populations especially when they are so large in differential can matter even if it means an advantage of 1 or 2 players. Look at the mergered schools, in many cases one or two players from a school has turned a program around. Eastchester had a weak team for years until they merged with Tuckahoe and Bronxville. They picked up a few kids from those schools and turned it around. So even a lesser percentage of an increase can be an advantage. In Byrams case versus Somers/North Salem which are two division 2 teams, the difference is at least 400. I would think minimizing that is not right. I will bet Byram would be happy to look at another 200 boys and see if one or two athletes could help their team, why not? I think if the numbers were closer and the difference in enrollment numbers were closer than they are then it wouldnt matter as much but 400 students when one or two could make a huge difference in a team is meaningful

13. Al Bundy May 27th, 2009 at 10:18 am

    School size matters to a point.

    However, key in your thought is “1 or 2 players can turn a school around”.

    Good planning often trumps school size. If a coach can develop 5 hockey players per grade, he is likely to have a very good program. Perhaps 1 or 2 of these will be the “special” player and the others will provide good support.

    The key is a coach’s ability to identify his players as far back as there elementary school years. Get to know them, get them involved in the program, they’ll feel special and will grow up wanting to play for you.

    This is too often not the case though. I suspect many coach’s couldn’t name the players on their modified teams. If a coach is meeting his freshman players for the first time at tryouts, it’s likely the program is very low performing.

14. Al Bundy May 27th, 2009 at 10:25 am

    It also goes back to the earlier discussion on coach’s involvement in spring or fall hockey. It seems the most involved programs and coach’s are….Rye, Pelham, Mamoroneck, Suffern…ta da…no surprise there.

    Coach Orlando explained that coach’s involvement in fall and spring hockey is not specifically prohibited.

    Ask yourself…how much is my high school’s coach involved before and after the season?

15. Mahopac May 27th, 2009 at 11:16 am

    Mahopac coaches are involved in the spring hockey program at Brewster and with the exception of only about 2-3 kids the whole team is playing, they also try and put a fall league together each fall.

16. LoHud Hockey May 27th, 2009 at 1:27 pm

    great post Lohud-

    You mentioned the merger making the difference in that the one or two kids picked up by Eastchester when they merged with Tuckahoe & Bronxville turned that program around. To a certain extent you are correct, but picking up one or two kids in the first year of the merger means nothing after a couple of years go by and none of those kids are around anymore. You are still left with the inherent problem of having no one coming up through the ranks. Like Al Bundy posted, you have to hit up the elementary schools and get the kids to be interested in learning how to skate.

    Forget about hockey for a minute. If you can go into the elementary schools and convince a dozen or so kids to come to a “learn to skate” clinic just to see how they react, you are well on your way. Lets say half those kids decide they don’t like skating after a clinic or two, and another one or two decide they like skating but they don’t want to play hockey, you still have a handful of kids to teach the game to.

    I know SOR has clinics for kids to learn to skate and/or learn to play hockey all through the year. Right now, they have a weekly mite clinic that is put together by Nyack, North Rockland, & Suffern to get kids in the area on the ice and teach them basic skills. There are kids ranging from those who are just getting on skates for the first time to those who may be 6 years old, but have been skating for a couple of years. It’s great to see (especially since it is showing that Nyack & North Rockland are working at breathing life into their programs the way Suffern has for years) and it’ll be even better to one day be blogging about which of these kids deserves all-county, all-league, all-state, etc. and talking about how they were learning to skate together when they were five years old.

17. there you are May 27th, 2009 at 2:47 pm

    Lohud,

    Exactly. Then instead of the larger schools who are not successful dropping down in classification why dont they build their program as you suggested and as some of the other successful teams do? Why penalize those schools who develop players? Why reward mediocrity? The larger population schools are also larger in the elementary schools too so why don`t they start there? Good point that if a school gets 5 quality players per year that pretty much sets them up. Smaller schools only get 4 or 5 new additions to choose from each year while larger schools get double that. The population is a key factor here and there is strength in numbers

18. Lion May 27th, 2009 at 4:00 pm

    There will always be a school size discrepancy. Most sports have 3 or 4 classification, so the school size range is within 100 or so. Hockey has only two classifications because relatively few schools play hockey. Thusly you have as much as 500 school size difference and greater within the 2 classes. This cannot be changed.

    Even a large size discrepancy like 500 or greater does not doom you to being a poor program. Bring in a coach and staff who know what needs to be done and in a matter of a couple of years they can get a program to respectability.

    I’ll repeat that the work needs to start in the grade schools. Hockey does not have the low cost feeder programs that CYO basketball, little league baseball, rec soccer, et.al..

19. fanotgame May 27th, 2009 at 5:12 pm

    Lohud, I went back on your website and looked at the DII winners all the way back to the late 80s. I saw a couple of late 1980s DII winners like Ossining and Irvington merged with Woodlands (interesting for this particular blog stream). Would those late 1980s DII winners have competed in the state playoffs, or back then, would the DI runner up have participated in the DII states? If so, that would mean that the only Section One teams to compete in the state playoffs are Suffern, Mamo, Rye, Pelham, Fox Lane, North and New Ro? Is that right?

    It was interesting to note (for this blog stream, at least) that Irvington- then merged with Woodlands did win the DII title in 1988?

20. LoHud Hockey May 28th, 2009 at 9:44 am

    fanotgame-

    I am not 100% sure how they did it each year, but I know it did change a few times during the 80’s before they settled on letting everyone declare what division they wanted to play in (regardless of enrollment size) in the early 90’s.

    For example, in 1984-85 (the first year of Rockland being in Section 1), Suffern won the D1 championship & North Rockland the D2 title. I know for a fact both those teams went into the state tournament that year. In the 1987-88 season that you mentioned, however, I know for a fact that Woodlands/Irvington did not represent Section 1 in the D2 states. Rye beat Suffern in the D1 championship game, so Rye went as the D1 representative and Suffern as the D2 rep.

21. fanotgame May 28th, 2009 at 3:15 pm

    Lohud- Thanks. I went on to the wikepedia link on your site and took a look at the state tourney history. I must be all wrong about which Section One teams participated in the state tourney. That site has Ossining as the DII state champs in ‘87 and ‘89 and Lakeland/Panas as DII state champs in 1999. Does that sound right?

22. Sec 1 Follower May 28th, 2009 at 8:38 pm

    I don’t want to be the one to say it but I will. Does anyone think socioeconomic status of the area have anything to do with hockey?

23. LoHud Hockey May 28th, 2009 at 9:19 pm

    It looks like you are referring to the section that lists all the teams in the state. I wouldn’t go by that section. There is another section on that page that lists the results of all the state title games. That is more acurate.

    Problem with Wikipedia is that anyone can go on and change the site. I guess someone thought that messing with it would be a good idea.

24. Conference one May 29th, 2009 at 8:46 am

    Anyone hear about results from last nights scheduling committee meeting ?

25. Al Bundy May 29th, 2009 at 8:48 am

    Yes, socio-economic status is integral to hockey in this region. However, it’s just not about money.

    You can easily say Rye and Pelham have succesful hockey programs due to the affluence of those towns, but they have no natural advantage that Clarkstown South or Byram Hills or Harrison high schools have. I’ll credit those program for their good organization and coaching as the way they maintain there year-after year success.

26. Amazing May 29th, 2009 at 9:01 am

    Conference one,

    Does anyone really care! They have already screwed up the Hockey season for next year already. Talent is down, coaches are upset and the AD’s are in their Ivory Towers! Gimme a Break! And the parents are also upset.

    I hate to say this, but if your son wants to play High School Hockey, YOU MIGHT want to take a good look at the CHSHL teams in our area. Seems like Stepinac, Fordham and Iona Prep have strong teams. They definitely play competitive Hockey and they play more games. I’m also told they don’t have the additional expense of buses because the parents of the players drive to the games. Now that makes sense! Don’t all our parents go to the games and watch their sons play! I guess the AD’s of all our Public Schools couldn’t think about this easy solution to save some money. Simply Amazing!

27. Al Bundy May 29th, 2009 at 9:24 am

    If your son wants to go to private school and it’s within your family means it is an excellent choice. I’m a proud graduate of a NYC parochial high school myself.

    Just my opinion, I wouldn’t advocate doing it just for hockey though. There are excellent junior or midget programs in the area to more than get your hockey fix. Many believe these programs are better than all area high school hockey.

    Sometimes you have to go to these schools to get the best football or basketball programs, but good hockey has many other options.

28. amazingly off base May 29th, 2009 at 10:10 am

    I would not say the CHSHL is a good alternative to the public league and I am a CHSHL fan. Sure Iona and Fordham have good teams and solid history. Stepinac had low numbers on varsity and JV and are struggling despite having a nice year. The CHSHL does not have enough quality teams and the teams play the same teams over and over again. There is no rhyme or reason with scheduling. Games are either jammed together in a row or spread out sometimes 10 days apart. The teams can play anywhere at anytime from Brooklyn to Queens to Westchester and the only team that appears to have a home rink game slot is Fordhams Friday night at Playland. The CHSHL teams do not cut ice between periods except duirng playoff games which is out of the stone age. The CHSHL teams do not get as much practice ice as the better public teams get either and thats important to players who want to continue playing after high school. I know Fordham goes once or twice a week practice at most while some better public school teams can go three or four times and thats important. In CHSHL the policy is not to play 9th graders on varsity and that can be a problem for a strong 9th grader who misses a year at the varsity level to play in the JV league which is suspect too

29. fanotgame May 29th, 2009 at 10:28 am

    Also, the rule usedto be (and may stillbe) that if you transferred to a CHSHL school after playing varsity hockey the season before at public/private, you had to sit out a season before playing varsity hockey at the CHSHL school.

30. budget league May 29th, 2009 at 10:47 am

    I enjoy the CHSHL games especially the matchups with the public school teams. I think going to Iona or Fordham strictly for hockey is ridiculous unless you go to a public school that does not have hockey. Even then there are plenty of travel programs offering better hockey opportunities. The CHSHL has been stagnant the last decade or so and they really have not done much to improve the league at all. The public schools at least went to ice cuts between periods, have a great state playoff system and instituted overtime in regular season games which the CHSHL still does not do. The public high school does a better job marketing itself with a super website. The public school league is still ahead of the CHSHL in many areas and I hope they can catch up

31. Hockey Fan May 29th, 2009 at 11:18 am

    The rule still stands in the CHSHL that if you transfer in, “You sit out a year”!

    After following High School Hockey for the pat 8 years, I have to say that I have noticed ALOT of changes taking place in our area. I starting to feel that the overall talent for our area is dropping. Yes, your Mamaroneck’s, Pelham’s, Rye’s and Suffern’s will most likely have competitive teams but the rest will have problems.

    Noticed more and more these days that the very good players are relly starting to go to Prep Schools or Play Junior Hockey. Wasn’t that way in the past…. Players wanted to play for their High Schools even if they were playing travel Hockey. Look at the players this year that are leaving High School Hockey and playing elsewhere for their senior year(Hagen, Ciotti, Dzneis). And i think there might be a player or two from Mamaroneck going to Prep school also. What does this tell you?

    I think I might agree with one of the earlier bloggers. If your son is going into High School, your best bet these days might be going to one of the CHSHL teams. Yes they might have 1 or 2 teams that might be weak in the AA divison but the other 4-5 will be very competitive. And they have no ice cuts between periods but they will eventually be MORE competitive than the Public Schools. (Also,FYI….the CHSHL teams do have ice cuts in between periods during their playoffs).

    In my opinion, the new setup with these new leagues will really be watered down. Can’t wait to see some of the top teams putting up 10-15 goals a game against the weaker competition in their divisions.

32. disagree May 29th, 2009 at 11:42 am

    The CHSHL may not even survive. The only viable teams are Fordham Iona Chaminade and Farrell. Those two Chaminade and Farrell rely heavily on travel kids and have issues with that. You will not see as many blowouts as you think in the public league this year, and league games are not as critical as sectionals. The second division CHSHL teams are in disarray Mount St Mikes Spellman St Rays and Ford are barely holding on. If anything Fordham and Iona should join section 1. Stepinac numbers are weak at JV and varsity level. The new public high school league setup will probably only be for next year they will probably go back to the old way after next seasob

33. Al Bundy May 29th, 2009 at 11:59 am

    The Iona and Fordham teams will survive and I suspect the CHSHL will be around also. It’s been around since the 70’s.

    But recognize that the tradition and strength of the Catholic school sport is in the basketball and football programs and they’ll never leave the CHSAA for section 1. You just can’t send the hockey teams to the public league. The school and all it’s teams have to go. Albertus Magnus and JFK catholic in section 1 have all their programs in section 1.

34. CHSHL Fan May 29th, 2009 at 12:02 pm

    I would love to see the Stepinac’s, Fordham’s and Iona Preps play in a League with the public Schools. Can you imagine having Iona Prep, Mamaroneck, Suffern, White Plains, Pelham, Fordham Prep playing against each other. It would be wild but it would never happen!

35. Al Bundy May 29th, 2009 at 12:33 pm

    For the CHSHL to strengthen itself, and Iona and Fordham imparticular, they should limit their league games to only 2 games against each other league team. This will leave them with alot of schedule to fill, but don’t look for the section 1 teams to pick up that slack.

    Iona and Fordham should do a better job in establishing annual home and away games against the regional private school teams…the Jersey schools (St.Peters, St. Joes, Don Bosco, Bergen), RCDS, the upstate Catholics, the Connecticut schools, an annual away tournament against some Massachussets schools, or a trip or two against the Buffallo-Rochester schools.

    Than they’ll be able to distinguish there brand of hockey as being better than section 1.

    I rarely see any of this type of consistent scheduling from Iona and Fordham, just too many CHSHL league games and not enough venturing out of the region.

36. What's the news? May 29th, 2009 at 1:25 pm

    Still waiting for word on the Scheduling Committee meeting – any news?

    I heard that one Section 1 coach said that they will probably run up the score initially in games to show that this league format is inappropriate. Realistically, after a few games, they would probably just go back to playing the 3rd and 4th lines and not try to run up the score.

37. CHSHL Fan May 29th, 2009 at 1:31 pm

    Have to disagree with you AL Bundy….

    Iona Prep has definitely looked to expand their program. Yes, last year was tough because they had a young goalie and they lost alot of their strength through graduations the year before. SO they didn’t feel that they could compete with many of the real power houses (Delbarton and Don Bosco)that they had played against in the previous years. But if you look at their team two-three years ago when they had DiMario, King, Cambria, Lopez, Molinaro and McCabe they were playing teams like Suffern, Monroe Woodbury, Delbarton, St. Mary’s (LI) Bergen Catholic, Burke Catholic, Brunswick Academy, RCDS and Don Bosco. “NOT A BAD COMPETITIVE SCHEDULE”! Has any Public School in our area played any of these teams in the past 3-4 years?

    This years team, will most lilely be back playing that same type of competition and unless you’re one of the top Public Schools in the Westchester/Rockland area, they probably will not play you.

    Concerning the competition within the CHSHL, try and play Fordham, Stepinac, Iona Prp, Monsg Farrell, Chaminade and St. Anthony’s three times a season. They all play aggressive and competitive hockey. Many of them have strong Travel and Junior Hockey players. In my opinion,I don’t really think that many of the Public Schools could handle that type of pounding!

38. pounding? May 29th, 2009 at 1:59 pm

    Mamaroneck destroyed Stepinac this year.

39. should be better May 29th, 2009 at 2:01 pm

    If teams like Suffern and Mamaroneck could recruit players like private schools do they would be even better. Public has to play the cards they are dealt. Despite that Iona Fordham and Stepinac would have fit in with league 1 this year but would not have dominated it

40. Al Bundy May 29th, 2009 at 2:35 pm

    CHSHL Fan…the schedule needs to be even more consistent. The Bergen’s and the Bosco’s, an annual away tournament, trips to Mass., should be a mainstain every year of the Iona and Fordham schedule.

    Look at Delbarton, Bosco and Bergen schedules in NJ. They do trips every year and play very few public schools..whether their teams are strong or mediocre. Bergen was down the last couple of years, better this year, and Bosco was down this year.

    And why be subject to the public schools whims anyway. They’ll be playing fewer games this year anyhow, probably won’t have schedule room for private schools, and to often when they need to cancel a game it’s the non-league private school game that gets cancelled.

41. Meeting May 29th, 2009 at 3:10 pm

    Conf. 1 – Is doing a double round robin.
    Conf. 2 – Is doing a single round robin
    Conf. 3 – Is doing a double RR
    Conf. 4 – Is doing a double, but only 1 game for each team counts, because Suffren is only doing a single.

    Suffern, basically got to do whatever they want. They are able to schedule whomever they want, and only have 5 required games on their schedule. Either their AD is great or all of the others are just that dumb. I have a feeling it’s the latter.

42. Al Bundy May 29th, 2009 at 3:20 pm

    No, conference 4 and Suffern is being very smart. South, North, Pearl River, North Rockland, NTZ are competitive with one another within a degree. They might as well play each other twice.

    Suffern is far better than that group of teams. If each conference only needs one required contest, this is the best thing for all those teams..play Suffern once, let them than go pursue section and state championships with more suitable competition. Have the othe Rockland teams play each other twice, even if only one contest counts since at least it’s comparable competition.

    Thanks “Meeting” for this info.

43. Conference 2 May 29th, 2009 at 3:29 pm

    Pelham and Mamaroneck did well in Conference 2 by playing a single round robin so they can keep their upstate tournament travels in tact

44. Al Bundy May 29th, 2009 at 3:43 pm

    Out of the big 4 teams (Suffern, Pelham, Mamo, Rye) does Rye get screwed by being locked into a Conference 3, 14 game schedule? If so, to bad, it shouldn’t be that way. Doubly, since they don’t even belong in a “Brewster” based conference.

45. fanotgame May 29th, 2009 at 4:09 pm

    Wonder why Rye couldn’t get what Suffern got? They are basically in the same situation Suffern is regarding conference opponents. This may be one of Rye’s strongest teams (in relation to the rest of the section) in recent history. Can’t figure out why the ADs at some of the Conference 3 schools want a home and home vs. the Garnets this coming season. Maybe they think the games will be competitive. We will see soon enough. I think Rye has already scheduled a bunch of upstate games. That likely means no Pelham till playoffs. Too bad about that.

46. disagree May 29th, 2009 at 10:53 pm

    Pelham and Rye coaches appear to have superb working relationship. Sure they will find a way to schedule games against each other.

47. Wow May 30th, 2009 at 12:32 am

    Thats ridiculous that Rye couldn’t cut a deal like Suffern did. You will see the Garnets blowing out Conference 3 this season. Count on it.

48. Shame May 30th, 2009 at 8:59 am

    Al Bundy and Wow.

    Agreed its a joke that any conf or team should have different rules. In Rye’s case it means that they have to play all 14 league games and will have 6 games to schedules elsewhere to get Sufferm, Mamk, Pelham or upstate games in. It is a total JOKE that suffern can have a different set of rules as well. How will this be seeded in the playoffs.. by competition during the season that will be based on who they played. This is totally unfair. All CONF should have the same rules.

    By the way, Rye should not be in the Brewster circuit. Nor should RTH. White Plains is closer and straight up 684 than either of those teams. Both of those team (with the exception of last year) are great in League 1. Rye has been solid for years. RTH was 4th overall the year before in their first year in league 1 and swept Rye. They had an off year last year due to graduation. Its an excellent program and we like playing our cross town rivals (most have friend on RTH having played Rangers or Mariners together).

    Why put Rye or RTH up in Brewster.? How were these conf rules established. Were the coaches or ADs consulted. It does seem like certain teams got the preferences.

49. motivation May 30th, 2009 at 9:17 am

    Seems like the motivation for all this garbage was a panic on budgets and the economy. Gas prices were at $5 and jobs and housing looked bad. With things evening off I think this next year will be the only time this will happen and theyll go back to the old system next year. Not so sure Suffern will be as good as they and everyone else thinks they will be. They were offensively challenged last year and are losing some quality senior players. Time will tell. I would like to see how they handle the seedings that will be interesting

50. Conference one May 30th, 2009 at 9:38 am

    I don’t understand how there are differences between conferences. Does any other sport do anything similar? Not that I’m aware of. But I’ll wait for something official other than a posting by “Meetings” to see if this is correct.

    Harold??? Coach Orlando? LoHud?

51. hockey2 May 30th, 2009 at 9:52 am

    motivation…

    Suffern will be fine next year.

52. Suffern May 30th, 2009 at 1:33 pm

    They should be ok thats true but they will be less separated from the pack then they normally have been

53. HockeyFan May 30th, 2009 at 5:06 pm

    I would like to thank all the AD’s of all the Public Schools for really screwing up a good thing! Our power league was really good. Why fool with something that worked. It’s nice to see our decision makers making fools of themselves! It’s nice to have our Tax dollars working for us and saving us money!

    So let’s get something straight! The AD”s switched all the Leagues to save money. But teams like Mamaroneck will only have to play each team once, which now allows they to take more upstate trips to play inferior competion, smoke pot, and steal from stores. How is that going to save Mamaroneck High School money?

54. interesting May 30th, 2009 at 7:16 pm

    without question the dumbest post ever

55. Shame May 31st, 2009 at 5:19 pm

    Agreed this was done to save money. However, teams like RTH and Rye will have their budgets exceeded by having to take longer bus rides to Brewster more often. Those time slots are usually Friday – Saturday night slots and late. Means more overtime. If they are an early time slot it means leaving school early. There was zero thought put into this. I would like to know and see (Harold can you get this? Which ADs voted for this system? And, who was at this meeting that allowed the conf to be different). Harold can you please post that.

56. Harold Gutmann May 31st, 2009 at 5:51 pm

    Shame,
    I’m not sure what vote you’re referring to. The vote by all schools to move into four geography-based conferences for every sport but football was something like 70-15.
    Then the hockey ADs met to decide whether to ask the athletic counsel — which actually has the power to change things — to leave hockey alone. I don’t have the exact number, but it was voted down “a lot to a little” according to John Orlando.
    So to answer your question, every AD was at the meeting, and the vast majority approved the system that will be used next year.

57. hockey fan August 3rd, 2009 at 11:51 pm

    Suffern got that schedule because John Orlando is the Section 1 chairman and he will always let suffern do whatever they want.