LCAHL Survey Results

1. LCAHL Survey Results 2007/2008 Season Conducted May 14 -30, 2008

3. Geographic Distribution Districts 2, 4, 5 and 6 participated in the LCAHL House Program District 3 participated only in Travel District 4 had the largest number of participants as a result of their participation in both the House and Travel Programs

4. Respondent Program Distribution

5. League Performance

6. Expectations

7. Competitive Divisions (Travel) Overall the level of competition and level of play are good. Consideration should be given to improving the alignment process but there is still a 90% + satisfaction rate While there were many suggestions about a pre league tournament, the logistics associated with this are not feasible in the current volunteer environment.

8. Midget Showcases More than 80% of the respondents are interested or would like more information about showcases at the midget level If the league were to take this on, it would mean more administrative costs but it could be used as a pilot for this format in other divisions. The Girls Travel Division also had comments requesting the league consider showcases for Girls Travel considering the geographic challenges.

9. Operations Board Performance The 2007/2008 LCAHL Operations Board Members were all volunteers that put in significant time to accomplish league goals and insure that the league ran smoothly Each member performed multiple roles during the season and was at 75% or more of league events such as scheduling and playoffs where significant work was required.

10. Communication Respondents prefer email from Division Directors and the LCAHL email blasts but also use the Website and our local hockey publications Some other suggestions include: Telephone Calls (this is not possible considering limited volunteer time) Pointstreak (This can be done but we would need to research) Member also asked for a better way to manage/update email addresses (This is a system issue to be reviewed with Pucksystems or Pointstreak)

11. Automation Automation is a success as evidenced by the satisfaction ratings Comments: LOVE the technology Pointstreak: Simplify website navigation and data entry process, improve response times, increase edit capabilities for team managers Pointstreak Scoring/Rosters: a variety of comments about what should or should not be entered into Pointstreak (addressed specifically later in the survey) Timing: Teams need to get data into Pointstreak quicker; Cash checks sooner Payments: Allow online check payment for associations and teams without debit cards; Improve email management process � add a process to change addresses and insure all teams get the information

12. Game Counts and LCAHL.org

13. Pointstreak 95% favor continued use of Pointstreak for rosters, scoring and statistics 89% believe roster information should be entered into Pointstreak 65% believe that this information should be displayed at some level with the majority selecting Bantam and above

14. Pointstreak Scoring

15. Playoffs

16. Division Trophies

17. Top Priorities Top priorities Limitation of travel due to economic conditions League Boundaries Travel Competitive Play Timing of Playoffs Pointstreak Improvements

18. Comments There are many good ideas and comments that we are still in the process of reviewing This information will be available shortly. Prepared by: Lisa Zarzycki, LCAHL Travel Division Director and Communications Direct Comments or questions to lisazar@ameritech.net