West Ranch looked really good at the IHE Tournament last weekend. It seems that the level of play in this league is continuing to improve. Say what you want about 16AA or 18AA but in my opinion in a couple of years High School Varsity in Southern California will have completely replaced those divisions.
There is no good high school hockey in a vacuum. Good high school hockey has and always will be as a supplement to travel hockey. Certainly in High School it is not unusual for kids who are great athletes to make it onto a team as a depth player, but everyone knows that the High School teams rise and fall with the talent level and depth of the nucleus which for successful teams is always kids that have already played Tier for most of their youth and frequently are playing both High School and travel.
Given the high cost of the sport, I understand that for a lot of kids and their families they might need to make a decision between the two, but purely from the standpoint of what constitutes good hockey, it's just common sense that if you are playing a team where 8 players are at travel level, and 4-6 aren't that isn't going to be the best level of competition.
Compared to travel, High School hockey is a lot more fun and exciting. As kids get older, travel hockey games get stale, even if they are far more challenging and competitive. High School offers the chance to be recognized by peers and receive some of the appreciation and support that kids who play football or basketball get, especially if the team is winning games and finding a fanbase within the school.
If you have a robust youth hockey system, they support each other. Certainly for some people, it's going to be one or the other, but that should be the minority of players. If the majority of travel players are able to play both, then you get the best of each, and in the traditional hockey markets, that is what you see. You don't see High school killing off travel hockey, and if that is where things are going, then it's not good for the state of the sport.