Thanks for the excellent questions and discussion over the last 24 hours or so. I disagree that if a kid is good, recruiters will find him. Maybe if you are a King or Duck AAA. Like most things in the US, the kid or family need to be proactive. However, a small group of PWAAA Kings and Ducks have already taken orientation trip to the Boston area but that may be only 4-8 kids and families. There is a lot of development that can happen between ages 12 and 18. SSM costs in the mid-$50s as one person noted above. We cannot afford that but I met dad of a HS sophomore at a treadmill session in Carlsbad whose Wildcat son has overtures from Harvard and a prep school in NE. Two takeaways: 1. His son has a 4.8 GPA with his AP courses and 2. His son was offered a substantial scholarship. That tells me that academic performance does count if a family values education equally to hockey. Kid A might be #1 or #2 in his age group in CAHA but be a mediocre student while kid B may be #25 (if that kind of precision is possible with pre or early teens) but an outstanding student. If kid #25 is bigger, stronger, faster but not as good a hockey player, what will 2-6 years of development do to those rankings? How do academic prep schools and Ivy league universities weigh these two kids? We would prefer the Pac-12 to have a full hockey program in 3-5 years but, short of that, we will do what we can to assure our son has a shot at continuing his hockey career at a great university. A SSM or another prep school can make difference because of integrated academics and hockey, more and better hockey, coaching, and teammates, and reputation. A graduate of SSM told us last summer at a hockey camp that SSM has two types of students: great hockey players and really smart and rich overseas Chinese students. Who knows what path a 14 year old might take at age 25 or 30 but if social networks matter, then SSM is a good investment.