Lord Baltimore wrote:I think the fundamental question you must ask yourself is do you think that Minnesota Made and Minnesota Hockey competes for players?
I know some do both programs so that blurs the line a bit but is that the majority or the minority few? I need clarification there.
However, if you beleive they do in fact compete for players, then what is the next step in the logic? Competition is usually seen as a good thing to the free market believers here and I don't disagree. Competition in theory should benefit the player right? It provides great things like choice, flexibility to name a few.
Now, if you do in fact deem MM and MH competitors, a whole new set of rules should apply in regards to where kids play. Think of it this way. If I work for Pepsi, I can't also work for Coke. Also, if I work for Pepsi, normally I couldn't quit today and start at Coke tomorrow in a similiar capacity because of a non-compete agreement that Pepsi probably would have made me sign. You don't think this applies to youth athletics? The Minnesota State High School League (still youth athletics) would disagree with you. If you participate on a MSHL sanctioned team you not only can't play on any other team, you can't play another sport...period. There are a few minor exceptions, but for the most part the athelete is restricted to one team, one sport per season. So in essence, if the two entities (MH and MM) are truly competitors, competing for the services of the players and ultimately the checkbook of the parents, then players should be restricted to one program or the other.
If you don't believe that MM and MH comeptes for players, then this logic doesn't apply.
MN Hockey should have and now is probably going to do what it should have done years ago - institute an attendance policy. That's all that is needed here. This covers kids that miss practice/games for other hockey, other soccer - football - chess - etc activities that overlap. Don't show committment to the team and you will receive whatever sanctions the club wishes to announce and enforce. And risk not making the team next season.
It seems the courts are headed toward siding with an antitrust verdict against MH.
Everyone has their opinion as to whether MM is competing or offering an added developmental opportunity or both. At the end, everyone gets to keep their opinion. MM will likely get to keep its business model and offer its services. Because you like MM doesn't mean it will stay in business. Because you don't like MM doesn't mean it will go out of business. It will stay in business if it is providing a product that a "segment" of the consumer market values. JUST LIKE ANY OTHER BUSINESS. You may not be in that market segment. Does it mean it can't exist? And just like any other business it should be protected from illegal business practices.
If you don't like fast food, you choose not to go to McD's, but it still exists. Big brother is not eliminating it from your choice list.
The final court decision will dictate whether or not what MH was doing is illegal. Everyone's opinions after that will not matter.
Personally, I think MM offers a great product to provide additional training to supplement association hockey. More ice, more reps, quality instructors = better hockey players. That's a fact! If that's important to you, it's available at MM and some other places - development programs, 3 on 3 leagues, training centers. For those that want to do 2/3/4 of these, they should be free to do so if they can. I don't want big brother to ban my choice to do that, any more than I want BB to ban any other business that is providing a "legal" service that provides value to someone that needs/wants it.
And realize that the "majority" of those kids that are doing the extras obviously love hockey and are dedicated to getting better. Many of those kids will be the most improved players by the end of the season and their dedication to the sport will help out the team in a positive way. And don't kid yourself, like other's have posted, this threatens many parents that who don't do the extras and is the primary reason they object to it. Some kids will continue to do this year and year out. Some may not like both and stop doing it. It's their choice. It's not MH's choice, or anyone elses choice, to make.
If Associations want to ensure committment to the team, introduce and strictly enforce attendance policies. As long as the player follows the policy and demonstrates their committment to the team, that's all that matters right??
If they don't enforce an attendance/committment policy, and if they don't offer a great hockey product that may keep more parents and kids from seeking alternatives, then they have no right to point fingers at anyone but themselves. IMO
