Commercialization ruining minor hockey

[Slats432]

Even if you aren’t screwed over by institutionalized rules, you’ll get screwed over by just logistics. There’s no waivers system for minor hockey players. Very important to complete your due diligence ahead of time. There’s a reason teams feel largely “pre-selected” before anyone steps on the ice.

I don't see that much in Edmonton. Teams aren't preselected, and if you are a good player, you make teams. What people see is players move up as elite players year to year. Well that is usually because they are elite players.

What does happen though at the bottom of the roster, there are 5 guys that are all similar in quality, but have differing strengths. Then it gets down to 2 or 3 guys. One played house/community hockey the year before, one played elite hockey. Sometimes history comes in to play, and you lean on experience.

Two years ago, I made one cut I regretted. This year, it could be one, but there is no reference to know the other guy would have been better than the guy I kept so it is more likely I don't regret any releases.

When my son got cut from Peewee AA, I told him, you had two good skates, two meh skates, and one bad skate. Don't complain unless you have five good skates and then get cut.

 

[WarriorofTime]

I don't see that much in Edmonton. Teams aren't preselected, and if you are a good player, you make teams. What people see is players move up as elite players year to year. Well that is usually because they are elite players.

What does happen though at the bottom of the roster, there are 5 guys that are all similar in quality, but have differing strengths. Then it gets down to 2 or 3 guys. One played house/community hockey the year before, one played elite hockey. Sometimes history comes in to play, and you lean on experience.

Two years ago, I made one cut I regretted. This year, it could be one, but there is no reference to know the other guy would have been better than the guy I kept so it is more likely I don't regret any releases.

When my son got cut from Peewee AA, I told him, you had two good skates, two meh skates, and one bad skate. Don't complain unless you have five good skates and then get cut.

Can't speak to your specific club and how you operate, but especially with AAA tryouts at big name clubs, it'd be naive to walk into tryouts and expect a de novo review. Of course a kid could make themselves impossible to cut, but like you said, there are often a clunk of kids around the same level.

 

[Slats432]

Can't speak to your specific club and how you operate, but especially with AAA tryouts at big name clubs, it'd be naive to walk into tryouts and expect a de novo review. Of course a kid could make themselves impossible to cut, but like you said, there are often a clunk of kids around the same level.

I always suggest that coaches (Myself included) only want one thing, and that is to pick the best team. There are lots of factors, but players get released on their merits.

I had three excellent players at the end this year. I talked to last year's coaches, my assistants, the coaches of the team that released them from AAA. I brought out a couple of coaches from outside the organization to watch tryouts.

I even consulted with one of the training schools familiar with all the players. I had to release an excellent player. Did I pick the right one? Was the guy I released given a fair shake? He sure didn't think so.

Am I comfortable that our association has a process that is legitimate and gives all players a fair shake? Yes.

 

[Yukon Joe]

I don't see that much in Edmonton. Teams aren't preselected, and if you are a good player, you make teams. What people see is players move up as elite players year to year. Well that is usually because they are elite players.

So not at a club level, but federation. First year U13, my kid, after being a late AA cut, wound up placed on a Tier 2 team. I later heard the Tier 1 coach would have really liked to have my kid, but the Tier 2 coach (who was also a director) pretty much hand-selected his team based on kids he knew and liked.

Now no complaints - my kid liked the Tier 2 coach, he knew most of the kids on his team (see above). They had a good year. The Tier 1 team had an excellent year as well, and my kid affiliated up several times. But it was funny to watch the process unfold.

What does happen though at the bottom of the roster, there are 5 guys that are all similar in quality, but have differing strengths. Then it gets down to 2 or 3 guys. One played house/community hockey the year before, one played elite hockey. Sometimes history comes in to play, and you lean on experience.

Evaluations have got to be difficult. To my eye, I can pick out a handful of kids who are really really good, and a handful of kids who are bad, but there's always a big mushy middle that I don't know how you pick from. Of course, no matter how impartial you try to be, coaches are going to be drawn more to kids whose strengths they already know (or, be pushed away from kids whose weaknesses they already know).

 

[Slats432]

So not at a club level, but federation. First year U13, my kid, after being a late AA cut, wound up placed on a Tier 2 team. I later heard the Tier 1 coach would have really liked to have my kid, but the Tier 2 coach (who was also a director) pretty much hand-selected his team based on kids he knew and liked.

Now no complaints - my kid liked the Tier 2 coach, he knew most of the kids on his team (see above). They had a good year. The Tier 1 team had an excellent year as well, and my kid affiliated up several times. But it was funny to watch the process unfold.



Evaluations have got to be difficult. To my eye, I can pick out a handful of kids who are really really good, and a handful of kids who are bad, but there's always a big mushy middle that I don't know how you pick from. Of course, no matter how impartial you try to be, coaches are going to be drawn more to kids whose strengths they already know (or, be pushed away from kids whose weaknesses they already know).

Interestingly enough, I had moved from U18AA two years ago to U16AA due to taking a year off and the guy that took over last year wanted to come back so I took a different level. Going into tryouts I didn't know any of the kids from a hole in the wall. When you are a federation coach, you have a kid on the team, and you know all the kids and parents since they have all grown up together.

I did not have that (which is both a benefit and a challenge).

 

[golfortennis1]

Interestingly enough, I had moved from U18AA two years ago to U16AA due to taking a year off and the guy that took over last year wanted to come back so I took a different level. Going into tryouts I didn't know any of the kids from a hole in the wall. When you are a federation coach, you have a kid on the team, and you know all the kids and parents since they have all grown up together.

I did not have that (which is both a benefit and a challenge).

I have known of a few kids who have moved into a new area, and tried out for AAA, and while they were likely better than half the team, they weren't a standout, and since the coach had coached the previous years' team with the same group, the new kid is at a huge disadvantage because "the coach knows what he is getting" with the kid from last year. So unless the new kid really outdoes the returnee, he's not making the team.

Not saying you are like this, but your post reminded me of those stories. Which always leads me back to how many times are coaches more worried about their resumes than getting these kids to be the best players they can be.

 

[Slats432]

I have known of a few kids who have moved into a new area, and tried out for AAA, and while they were likely better than half the team, they weren't a standout, and since the coach had coached the previous years' team with the same group, the new kid is at a huge disadvantage because "the coach knows what he is getting" with the kid from last year. So unless the new kid really outdoes the returnee, he's not making the team.

Not saying you are like this, but your post reminded me of those stories. Which always leads me back to how many times are coaches more worried about their resumes than getting these kids to be the best players they can be.

There is zero chance that a coach cuts a player better than half the team. If I have 6 dmen from last year and I cut the 4th best guy in tryouts, then I don't know what I am doing and shouldn't coach. Same thing about cutting the 7th best forward.

When you are in your bottom 2 or 3, it is easy to lean on your experience with a player. Not top half of the lineup.

 

[patnyrnyg]

There is zero chance that a coach cuts a player better than half the team. If I have 6 dmen from last year and I cut the 4th best guy in tryouts, then I don't know what I am doing and shouldn't coach. Same thing about cutting the 7th best forward.

When you are in your bottom 2 or 3, it is easy to lean on your experience with a player. Not top half of the lineup.

I think the issue is in a short tryout period, it is hard to get as good of feel for the player. There are other factors than just who is "better". Last year, a kid was on my kid's team (3rd team in our org for 10U) because the coaches on both the top and 2nd team (he would have been on the top team skill wise) did not want to deal with the kid's mother. My daughter also filled in for the 12U "C" team a few times. They had one kid who would have been on the "A" team, but was a discipline problem off the ice and the coach of both the A and B did not want him on their team. As a coach, sometimes you have a good group of kids and families and want to keep them together. So, I get what golfortennis1 is saying.

 

[Slats432]

When you are talking about Federation hockey all of the factors are skewed. In elite/club hockey, coaches want the best team. At the u12 and u10 level it really doesn't matter if you are the top team, middle team or bottom team. Development paths are different, kids grow differently. Until they tryout for the club level they just need to try to get better and enjoy the game.

 

[Yukon Joe]

There is zero chance that a coach cuts a player better than half the team. If I have 6 dmen from last year and I cut the 4th best guy in tryouts, then I don't know what I am doing and shouldn't coach. Same thing about cutting the 7th best forward.

When you are in your bottom 2 or 3, it is easy to lean on your experience with a player. Not top half of the lineup.

So of course there's a reason I'm not a coach (well more than just an assistant coach who mostly helps moving pucks around).

But how easily can you really tell if you have, say, 10 d-men trying out, which are the top 6? In particular in a compressed try-out where you don't know the kids?

Because from my eye in the stands, in that group of 10 I can probably identify the top 1-2, and the bottom 1-2 - but beyond that I don't have a clue.

Honest question. I mean hopefully you can, and that's why you coach and I don't. But it seems almost impossible to me.

 

[Slats432]

So of course there's a reason I'm not a coach (well more than just an assistant coach who mostly helps moving pucks around).

But how easily can you really tell if you have, say, 10 d-men trying out, which are the top 6? In particular in a compressed try-out where you don't know the kids?

Because from my eye in the stands, in that group of 10 I can probably identify the top 1-2, and the bottom 1-2 - but beyond that I don't have a clue.

Honest question. I mean hopefully you can, and that's why you coach and I don't. But it seems almost impossible to me.

I have been a paid hockey evaluator for over 20 years. There have been times I have to have a full assessment of 20 plus players in an hour. You learn to see things quickly, and you can't see it all. Here is a basic tryout for defensemen.

There is a benefit though to coaching elite hockey vs. federation hockey. The gaps between players is easier to identify. In one scrimmage at elite level, say there are 5 D per team so 10 players. The top 2 on either team is generally going to be identified in the first 5-10 minutes.

In tryouts they play 3-5 games. So if there are four teams with 5 defensemen on them, you can get down to 8 pretty quickly. When there are multiple age categories, like U18AAA, U17AAA and then U16AA then you only work with the rankings of the players you have.

So when U18AAA releases, the U17AAA releases you have the trickle down. After the 3-5 scrimmages, you get the releases and you start practicing. I might get 3 or 4 practices before I have to do releases. By the time I have 6 skates with a player, I have a pretty good idea. Then it get into the minutae.

Size, physicality, skating, puck skills, hockey sense. Once I am down to 7- 8 defensemen, and then a release comes, it pushes the bottom guy down to federation. Then you get down to 6 dmen. Then if another release comes, you have to cull the bottom player. The two players at the bottom can be a razor thin margin. You talk to your coaches, and make the best decision possible. The same happens at every position.

This year more than ever, we feel like we hit it out of the park and didn't have any misses. Two years ago at U18AA, I had what I would call a certain miss, and a player that was excellent in tryouts didn't perform during the season and a guy I released, I feel would have been a better player for us. But we make the best decisions based on all the information.

 

[Yukon Joe]

So going WAY back to the original topic...

Several of the kids my oldest son has played with last year are trying out for hockey academies / CSSHL teams (if you know what that means) for next year. They're 2010 kids, so they could conceivably be drafted into the WHL next summer, so I get why they're going for it. My son is kind of bummed (although he'd never say it) because there is no way we could ever afford the cost of a hockey academy (I think it runs around $30k for the year).

But on the other hand - if parents want to pay that kind of stupid money, who am I to stop them? There's definitely no guarantee that even if the kids make the team that they'll do anything special in hockey, so that's one hell of an expensive lottery ticket to buy.


(in Edmonton the big hockey academies would be OHA (Okanagan Hockey Academy) or NAX (Northern Alberta Xtreme). Your schooling and your hockey is combined, and you play against other hockey academies, not against the normal minor hockey teams).

 

[WarriorofTime]

So going WAY back to the original topic...

Several of the kids my oldest son has played with last year are trying out for hockey academies / CSSHL teams (if you know what that means) for next year. They're 2010 kids, so they could conceivably be drafted into the WHL next summer, so I get why they're going for it. My son is kind of bummed (although he'd never say it) because there is no way we could ever afford the cost of a hockey academy (I think it runs around $30k for the year).

But on the other hand - if parents want to pay that kind of stupid money, who am I to stop them? There's definitely no guarantee that even if the kids make the team that they'll do anything special in hockey, so that's one hell of an expensive lottery ticket to buy.


(in Edmonton the big hockey academies would be OHA (Okanagan Hockey Academy) or NAX (Northern Alberta Xtreme). Your schooling and your hockey is combined, and you play against other hockey academies, not against the normal minor hockey teams).

Where it gets unfortunate is if you have a kid that is good enough to keep going at the highest level for their age/region, but not a McDavid type obvious case, but a kid you can at least in theory want to give an opportunity to see how far they can go as they rise. You may know if you don’t put them in an academy, they’re at too big a disadvantage compared to their similarly (as of now) peers that will get those advantages. But you also know the odds of them going anywhere meaningful are pretty slim. So it’s a tough choice, if you can afford it, you may throw substantial dollars away at a slim chance of them making the WHL and then from there who knows. If you can’t, you’re effectively closing off that door forever or making a substantial commitment with dollars you probably don’t really have on what you call a lottery ticket.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Where it gets unfortunate is if you have a kid that is good enough to keep going at the highest level for their age/region, but not a McDavid type obvious case, but a kid you can at least in theory want to give an opportunity to see how far they can go as they rise. You may know if you don’t put them in an academy, they’re at too big a disadvantage compared to their similarly (as of now) peers that will get those advantages. But you also know the odds of them going anywhere meaningful are pretty slim. So it’s a tough choice, if you can afford it, you may throw substantial dollars away at a slim chance of them making the WHL and then from there who knows. If you can’t, you’re effectively closing off that door forever or making a substantial commitment with dollars you probably don’t really have on what you call a lottery ticket.

So to be clear before @Slats432 chimes in - hockey academies are not the only way to break into pro hockey. My own kid is playing at a very high level, hopes to make it to U15AAA for next year (which would be the highest) and then who knows where he goes. But it is undeniable that the hockey academies are placing a lot of kids now in junior hockey, and that this isn't some tactical choice made by us but a financial one.

I always figure though if you're good enough they'll find you, but that most kids are going to be playing beer league hockey in a few years anyways.

 

[WarriorofTime]

So to be clear before @Slats432 chimes in - hockey academies are not the only way to break into pro hockey. My own kid is playing at a very high level, hopes to make it to U15AAA for next year (which would be the highest) and then who knows where he goes. But it is undeniable that the hockey academies are placing a lot of kids now in junior hockey, and that this isn't some tactical choice made by us but a financial one.

I always figure though if you're good enough they'll find you, but that most kids are going to be playing beer league hockey in a few years anyways.

True I know the traditional AAA is still there, although that trend out west is more and more kids via the academies. So we will see where that goes. Hopefully it never hits the point where it becomes a “must”

 

[Satans Hockey]

Soccer is definitely a different system but my local MLS team the New York Red Bulls have instituted a free program for their U10 and U11 groups this year. Of course you still have to get your kid to that point to begin with but it's nice to see a team taking some burden off of families.

It's also different from hockey in the sense that NHL teams can't just grow their own local talent like the MLS can. We've had numerous players on the first team MLS team who have been in the academy since they were young kids and worked their way up the system so if these U10 and U11 kids do well they'll be kept in the system to go as high as they can.

A lot of soccer is like this throughout the world but drafts aren't a thing everywhere else. The MLS still has a collegiate draft but those players aren't anywhere near sought after like our other sports leagues.

They also have their own training grounds so that makes things easier because they aren't fighting for ice time nor paying for it. Even though it's still free it's also good marketing too because even if the kids don't turn out to be anything you have local kids and their families who still become a fan of the team. They have the MLS team players and coaches interact with the kids of all age groups so they get to see what it's like to be at the MLS level.

It's just a shame to me that hockey can't be more like this. I know the Devils run a first time learn to play hockey thing but it's still not free, they provide the gear and ice team but I think it's still like $200-300 and once you go through it you're done and have to go through whatever the normal programs are around here to continue playing.

Soccer still has a big pay to play problem in the US but I think as the MLS keeps growing they'll offer more programs and even at younger ages all across the academys and hopefully for free. If anyone's interested in what they offer...

Youth | NewYorkRedBulls.com

The latest news, scores, highlights and stats from the New York Red Bulls.

www.newyorkredbulls.com

 

[WarriorofTime]

Soccer is definitely a different system but my local MLS team the New York Red Bulls have instituted a free program for their U10 and U11 groups this year. Of course you still have to get your kid to that point to begin with but it's nice to see a team taking some burden off of families.

It's also different from hockey in the sense that NHL teams can't just grow their own local talent like the MLS can. We've had numerous players on the first team MLS team who have been in the academy since they were young kids and worked their way up the system so if these U10 and U11 kids do well they'll be kept in the system to go as high as they can.

A lot of soccer is like this throughout the world but drafts aren't a thing everywhere else. The MLS still has a collegiate draft but those players aren't anywhere near sought after like our other sports leagues.

Hockey was like that in the original six era. The NHL teams sponsored the junior teams and the junior teams often sponsored the minor teams, effectively it was a pyramid that funneled to the NHL. This is also why you didn’t see Americans get back in the nhl until expansion. They and the collegiate path operated outside that pyramid.

 

[Slats432]

So to be clear before @Slats432 chimes in - hockey academies are not the only way to break into pro hockey. My own kid is playing at a very high level, hopes to make it to U15AAA for next year (which would be the highest) and then who knows where he goes. But it is undeniable that the hockey academies are placing a lot of kids now in junior hockey, and that this isn't some tactical choice made by us but a financial one.

I always figure though if you're good enough they'll find you, but that most kids are going to be playing beer league hockey in a few years anyways.

Not tons to add. If you are good enough, they will find you.

 

[oldunclehue]

Not tons to add. If you are good enough, they will find you.

I agree with this to a certain degree, if you are in the top 10% of players in your age group, you will be found regardless of where you play as long as its at the top level. It's the middle of the pack kids that will be most affected by the Academy (commercialization) of competitive hockey. I have a 2011 playing in a provincial hockey program for his age group that splits up into regions. We have a strong age group for our area, some good players. There are no hockey academies near us, nearest being over 2 hours away and not an actual CSSHL organization, but an academy that the kids still play in the minor hockey system.

We played the team from the region of that academy last week, and almost all the kids on that regional team attended the academy for schooling/icetime during the day and then minor hockey in the evenings (AA/AAA).

The top level kids from both regions were easy to spot, regardless of the difference in skill development and daily ice at the academy.

The middle of the pack kids were where you saw the biggest difference. The kids that attend the academy had a step or two up on the kids from our region. Getting on the ice every single day for the entire year is easy to see. Those kids were faster, better on their skates, more drive and just simply put were better as players.

So yes...if you are good they will find you. But the opportunities around that middle to bottom 6 forward and 3-6 defensemen is much different and easy to observe.

 

[jetsmooseice]

I'd be curious to know the profile of the typical CSSHL family. I am in a situation broadly similar to @Yukon Joe , I am in a household with an above-average total income. But the idea of sending my kid to a CSSHL school when the time comes in a few years would require a massive level of parental sacrifice that I don't think I could handle, assuming my kid was capable of making the cut in the first place.

I know one guy who definitely had the means for CSSHL, but his kid went through the traditional AAA path, had a cup of coffee in the WHL, then settled into junior A. I am hard pressed to figure out what he would have gained by putting his kid in the CSSHL instead. In fact, I see a lot of guys on the pay-to-play Winnipeg Blues/Freeze in the MJ who came through the CSSHL. You kind of wonder, what's it for? Paying 30K a year for CSSHL to get a shot at joining one of the pay to play MJHL punching bags, all for a chance at at a scholarship to a DIII school no one has heard of like Alvernia?

Seems to me the CSSHL is a mug's game unless your kid is obviously at the top of the heap for their year - at least for boys, might be a different story for girls and I can't comment as I'm less familiar with that situation.

 

[Slats432]

I'd be curious to know the profile of the typical CSSHL family. I am in a situation broadly similar to @Yukon Joe , I am in a household with an above-average total income. But the idea of sending my kid to a CSSHL school when the time comes in a few years would require a massive level of parental sacrifice that I don't think I could handle, assuming my kid was capable of making the cut in the first place.

I know one guy who definitely had the means for CSSHL, but his kid went through the traditional AAA path, had a cup of coffee in the WHL, then settled into junior A. I am hard pressed to figure out what he would have gained by putting his kid in the CSSHL instead. In fact, I see a lot of guys on the pay-to-play Winnipeg Blues/Freeze in the MJ who came through the CSSHL. You kind of wonder, what's it for? Paying 30K a year for CSSHL to get a shot at joining one of the pay to play MJHL punching bags, all for a chance at at a scholarship to a DIII school no one has heard of like Alvernia?

Seems to me the CSSHL is a mug's game unless your kid is obviously at the top of the heap for their year - at least for boys, might be a different story for girls and I can't comment as I'm less familiar with that situation.

I would say that most CSSHL/academy families are dual income over $120K per year. Even the families at club hockey, when they drop of the kids at the rink 75% or higher are in Lexus, Range Rover, or other high end SUVs. High level hockey is not for the lower middle class or even barely middle class.

It is even a greater problem is the recruitment from U11/U13 levels to get them to play the big money for 5-6-7 years to get to Junior A.

 

[jetsmooseice]

I would say that most CSSHL/academy families are dual income over $120K per year. Even the families at club hockey, when they drop of the kids at the rink 75% or higher are in Lexus, Range Rover, or other high end SUVs. High level hockey is not for the lower middle class or even barely middle class.

It is even a greater problem is the recruitment from U11/U13 levels to get them to play the big money for 5-6-7 years to get to Junior A.

Maybe I'm too stingy but I just do not see how it's worth it for a midrange player to shell out 30K/year x 5 years (or whatever) just to play CSSHL for a shot at junior A. It's not like club hockey, which is expensive in its own right, cuts you off from that option. Junior A just isn't worth that kind of money, at least in Manitoba. Most of the vaunted player scholarships I see being announced by the MJHL are for obscure DIII schools. It's nice but hardly seems worth a $150K outlay at the CSSHL level.

I guess if you are 11-12 and already seen as a slam dunk for the WHL then it might be a different story. But that's a tiny portion of the talent pool

 

[Yukon Joe]

I would say that most CSSHL/academy families are dual income over $120K per year. Even the families at club hockey, when they drop of the kids at the rink 75% or higher are in Lexus, Range Rover, or other high end SUVs. High level hockey is not for the lower middle class or even barely middle class.

It is even a greater problem is the recruitment from U11/U13 levels to get them to play the big money for 5-6-7 years to get to Junior A.

So I have to say I think your income estimates are way off - if you're rolling up to the rink in a Lexus of Range Rover SUV your family income is well above $120k. This isn't a criticism of you, just a reflection of where inflation has gotten us. The median household income in Canada is about $95k (before tax).

Our own family household income is in the $200ks - and we don't role in fancy SUVs, and of course we're not sending our kids to CSSHL schools.

But yes I will agree with you - there's an issue when you hit U13 that the cost of doing community hockey compared to doing AA hockey is a serious jump. I know our family works a lot of bingos and the like to fundraise, and we see some other families who similarly do the same.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Maybe I'm too stingy but I just do not see how it's worth it for a midrange player to shell out 30K/year x 5 years (or whatever) just to play CSSHL for a shot at junior A. It's not like club hockey, which is expensive in its own right, cuts you off from that option. Junior A just isn't worth that kind of money, at least in Manitoba. Most of the vaunted player scholarships I see being announced by the MJHL are for obscure DIII schools. It's nice but hardly seems worth a $150K outlay at the CSSHL level.

I guess if you are 11-12 and already seen as a slam dunk for the WHL then it might be a different story. But that's a tiny portion of the talent pool

So of course if you're a slam dunk for the WHL you don't need to bother with CSSHL-type money to begin with.

But I do kind of get it. You're making really good money. You love your kid. Your kid loves hockey (and you love hockey). So anything your can do to advance your kid's chance even a little bit may well be worth it - I after all you can't take it with you.

Zack Hyman is the example. Growing up he was always a good player, but never exceptional. His dad though spent millions of dollars literally buying teams for Zack to play on. The thing is - it worked. Hyman was drafted and has now played a lengthy NHL career. The thing is this shouldn't take anything away from Hyman - he has clearly worked very hard thoughout his minor and pro career. But lacking the kind of all-world skill he never would have made it this far absent his father's cash.

So look - if my household income was more like $500k+, rather than what it is, I may well try to send my kid to play at NAX. But that wouldn't be any kind of financially wise decision - rather it would be an emotional decision all about my kid.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Seems to me the CSSHL is a mug's game unless your kid is obviously at the top of the heap for their year - at least for boys, might be a different story for girls and I can't comment as I'm less familiar with that situation.

So again because this isn't my story to tell I'll keep things pretty vague...

I do know a family with a girl in high level hockey. I talk with the mom about being a hockey parent all the time. They have her playing at a hockey academy.

I mean it sounds kind of insane to me. There's not even the potential "lottery ticket" that their kid will make millions in the NHL. At most there's maybe playing at the Olympics or the PWHL - neither of which makes any financial sense.

But the girl is an only child, the parents make a lot of money, the parents love their child, and she loves to play hockey.

Add in a side of the girl struggled at her last school, so they wanted to try and do something different for her.

I mean I sort-of get it. I was a smart kid in school, not an athlete, but I was struggling in grade 10. My parents made the financial decision to send me to private school for the remainder of high school (again - not on any kind of sports program). The cost wasn't $30k, but maybe $4-$5k in inflation adjusted dollars, and looking back I'm very grateful that they did that.