Gump wrote:Goldy -
Economics is not a compelling reason against Tier I. This could definitely be called a con to the idea of Tier I, but not a compelling reason. I could even say that economics is a pro because it would increase participation in MN Hockey (increase revenue), increase tourism revenue with other Tier I teams traveling to MN, bring other revenue sources into MN via increased exposure of our MN Hockey programs, National Tournament revenue (by the way, wouldn't Schwanns be the perfect place for this?), ...
There are all sorts of horror stories out there about the cost of Tier I hockey. Anything from $5k to $15k, one I even saw was $20k. Maybe it does cost $15k for someone to play on a team in Arizona that has to fly to every game - I don't know. In reallity, for MN to do it we're probably looking at something more like $2000 per player plus travel expenses. This is higher than most associations, but I don't think it's much higher than some. There are options to offset the cost. Associations have pull tab booths, fund raising events, concession stands, tournaments, ... There is no reason why Tier I teams couldn't have fund raisers and sponsors to offset their costs. Tier I would not have to be subsidized by MN Hockey to be affordable.
Anyway, Tier I is an option. If someone doesn't agree with it or find value in it, then they don't have to participate. But no one should prevent the option from becoming available or others from choosing the option.
You're correct in saying Tier I is an option and learning a thing or two during this discussion, I am softening on my anti-Tier I stance but as does Goldy, I find find it humorous that some think Tier I is in everybodys' budget. Can it be done in Minnesota for $2,000 per player, I'm pretty sure it can, but that is the bottom, basic, minimum $ figure, that gets you in the door onto the team, it is not the final cost at the end of the season and travel costs do figure in when you are discussing this.
Imagine this, you are the coach/recruiter for Team X, a Minnesota sanctioned Tier I team and you see my boy during a "A" level game and you would like him on your team (I can dream, can't I!) You find his parents and put your sales pitch. Would you seriously tell them that all playing Tier I is going to cost them is $2,000, ALL inclusive? Gump thinks $2,000 is slightly higher than most simliar or barely higher than some. Again, I agree, then you add, what I feel is the key phrase, "plus travel expenses". I have said that a road trip to Baudette for our current association team costs a lot less than a road trip to St Louis, MO, a tournament trip for our current association to Hermantown is less than a trip to Chicago for the Nike/Bauer. Also, obviously a Tier I team is going to have an arena, or group of arenas that it practices at, how many "home" games do they play? Considering our association season is almost divided up between home, away, and tournament games, 1/3 of the time we are "home", thus no travel expense for those games. The "plus travel expenses" is one part of this whole issue that makes the discussion irrelavent for most of the Minnesota Hockey registered families.
I still feel that this is metrocentric as this will "benefit" the large metro associations and that it will have little effect on non-metro associations whether they have elite players or not and I think this is where the most fatal flaw in this discussion is. Someone proposed 16 teams, one for each current district, OK, but I agree with the poster that said this is not practical as 16 more teams would dilute Tier I. Posters have also advocated that kids from non-metro area that tryout and make these Tier I teams would then live with billet families and transfer schools to the area where the team is located. If we start doing this, I see this as nothing more than creating another, lower level of jr hockey. Isn't part of the youth hockey experience the parents ability to watch their kids play and have fun, and develope and share in their glories and give them a hug after their defeats? It is for us. Even if my kids were the caliber of player that could make one of this teams, we would pass. Is there a market for this, I wholeheartedly agree there is, but there are markets for a lot of things that aren't necessarily good for you. Regardless of the cost, there are people that would pay it. I don't see where the benifit is to those elite players in small or non-metro associations where the costs outweigh the benefits for them to play against higher quality competition. Without benefit to all the associations, then it is not a benefit to Minnesota Hockey as a whole.
As Elliot said, currently there is an avenue to pursue Tier I with Minnesota Hockey, but you have one prerequisite, be a non-profit, and be able to answer tough questions. There are avenues to get into national tournaments. We are not shut out just because Tier I hockey isn't widespread across the state.
](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}