HP 17's Festival vs. Spring ACT Test

[Sats81]

Here is a way to look at this issue that might ease some anxiety.

The Festival has 160 kids and 54 will be chosen to move on.

-If the kid is easily in the top 30-40 kids, we will move on, so he should miss a game to take the ACT.

- if the kid is in the bottom half of the 160, he has no chance to move on and should miss a game to take the ACT.

-if a kid is on the bubble, and he plans to go to college whether or not he he plays hockey, he should miss a game to take the ACT.

-If a kid is on the bubble and super smart, he should miss a game to take the ACT because a strong ACT score can open up more hockey doors than advancing to the 54s.

-If a kid is on the bubble, not an academic and does not plan to go to college unless he plays hockey, then he should play instead of take the test. This is because this kid is probably going to spend a year or two in juniors and will be able to take the test later. Also, his ACT score is less critical because he may be looking for a strong hockey school without caring about rigorous admission standards. For this kid, advancing to the 54s might have more benefit than taking the test right now.

This also might help to determine if you should take the test or play a game of hockey. Here is some data I found a few years ago. It might be a little old, but it could shine some light on a player who is trying to make the right decision....The chances of a high school hockey player playing NCAA hockey are somewhere around 1 in 8 or just over 12%. The odds of a player then moving on from NCAA hockey to the NHL are 1 in 250 or 0.4%. Also, 85% of our working population (blue/white collar) is made-up of former NCAA athletes from any sport. Just some thoughts.

Interesting. Where did you find this data?

[Defensive Zone]

Here is a way to look at this issue that might ease some anxiety.

The Festival has 160 kids and 54 will be chosen to move on.

-If the kid is easily in the top 30-40 kids, we will move on, so he should miss a game to take the ACT.

- if the kid is in the bottom half of the 160, he has no chance to move on and should miss a game to take the ACT.

-if a kid is on the bubble, and he plans to go to college whether or not he he plays hockey, he should miss a game to take the ACT.

-If a kid is on the bubble and super smart, he should miss a game to take the ACT because a strong ACT score can open up more hockey doors than advancing to the 54s.

-If a kid is on the bubble, not an academic and does not plan to go to college unless he plays hockey, then he should play instead of take the test. This is because this kid is probably going to spend a year or two in juniors and will be able to take the test later. Also, his ACT score is less critical because he may be looking for a strong hockey school without caring about rigorous admission standards. For this kid, advancing to the 54s might have more benefit than taking the test right now.

This also might help to determine if you should take the test or play a game of hockey. Here is some data I found a few years ago. It might be a little old, but it could shine some light on a player who is trying to make the right decision....The chances of a high school hockey player playing NCAA hockey are somewhere around 1 in 8 or just over 12%. The odds of a player then moving on from NCAA hockey to the NHL are 1 in 250 or 0.4%. Also, 85% of our working population (blue/white collar) is made-up of former NCAA athletes from any sport. Just some thoughts.

Interesting. Where did you find this data?

Sorry, can't remember. I was looking up a few things one day and I stumbled upon it. I think it was something like high school/college hockey players making it to the NHL or something like that. Sorry, a senior moment.

[almostashappy]

Here is a way to look at this issue that might ease some anxiety.

The Festival has 160 kids and 54 will be chosen to move on.

-If the kid is easily in the top 30-40 kids, we will move on, so he should miss a game to take the ACT.

- if the kid is in the bottom half of the 160, he has no chance to move on and should miss a game to take the ACT.

-if a kid is on the bubble, and he plans to go to college whether or not he he plays hockey, he should miss a game to take the ACT.

-If a kid is on the bubble and super smart, he should miss a game to take the ACT because a strong ACT score can open up more hockey doors than advancing to the 54s.

-If a kid is on the bubble, not an academic and does not plan to go to college unless he plays hockey, then he should play instead of take the test. This is because this kid is probably going to spend a year or two in juniors and will be able to take the test later. Also, his ACT score is less critical because he may be looking for a strong hockey school without caring about rigorous admission standards. For this kid, advancing to the 54s might have more benefit than taking the test right now.

This sounds like sound advice to me. The only thing I would add is that since we're talking about 17's, the kid probably has already gone through HP15 and HP16 programs. The results from previous festivals should be taken into account.

In my opinion, it's really only the handful of bubble kids that need to worry much (i.e. kids that may have made it to the next level in previous years, but no further).

If a kid didn't make it past this first festival round in previous years, odds are generally against him this year. So, take the ACT, and don't worry about lost opportunity.

On the other hand...if he's made it through the next couple of levels in previous years, and is a known commodity, then missing one of the three games to take the exam still won't hurt him, because his name is probably already written on the list to move on (remember, the evaluators responsibility isn't to pick the most deserving players...it's to pick who they think are the best players).

[Gunrack]

Geez. No one is asking ACT admin or USA Hockey to reschedule everything in life. Is there anything between total support or total bashing on this site? I suppose EVERY kid (not just hockey players) currently signed up to take the ACT on April 18 could have taken in February -- thus I suspect everyone has their reason for waiting until Spring to do so -- not the least of which might be more class time and the fact that the majority of "when should I take the ACT test" queries/responses suggest Spring of a student's junior year, with additional prep over the summer and a re-take in the summer and/or fall of senior year, if necessary. Parents of the HP17 kids probably should have looked into their crystal balls months ago to see what HP17 schedule was going to be, the fools.

The 17's Saturday games are at 10 a.m., 3:45, 5:45 and 7:45. Wasn't asking for a change in world policy, was just wondering if an adjustment to the 10 a.m. game time (which seems oddly separate from the remaining game times) is something that has ever been done or could possibly be done, seeing as how Minn/USA Hockey has the place booked for the weekend. But, I see now I was "delusional." Thanks for pointing that out.

My wife told me not get "involved" with the forum. I guess now I have to admit to her that she was right. Good luck to all the boys, especially the ones signed up for the ACT.

Gunrack, just because your kid never made his section team, doesn't make it a fundraiser.

While others may have said it best, at the end of the day it is not he end of the world either way. If your son is good enough, they will find him. I have been through this before. I know that everyone wants the best for their son, HP isn't the be all end all.

And for the record 10minmajor, my son did make his section team every year. But it is not the reason he is still playing today. That is happening because he has worked hard, made sacrifices along the way and somebody found him.

[Nuts&Bolts]

Looks like the 16s bracket has a 1:45 game on Saturday. Couldn't the powers that be just flip the sole morning game for the 17s that is the conflict with the 16s? Maybe this was already thought of but its probably easier to just take the ones that made it in the past as Almost suggested.