DNT Article on Club Sports Teams

[karl(east)]

An interesting read:

http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/ ... id/275446/

[northwoods oldtimer]

Perhaps no area team has been affected by early departures more than Duluth East boys hockey. In recent years, stellar players such as Derek Forbort, Keegan Flaherty, Andy Welinski and Connor Valesano left the Greyhounds, while several others had similar options but stayed.

“There are a variety of reasons why kids leave,” said East coach Mike Randolph, a strong proponent of high school hockey. “In some cases they don’t want to play for me anymore, some have had enough of high school hockey, and some thought they were better than high school hockey.

Karl, who is coach throwing under the bus with the (bold) statement?

[roundhead]

Perhaps no area team has been affected by early departures more than Duluth East boys hockey. In recent years, stellar players such as Derek Forbort, Keegan Flaherty, Andy Welinski and Connor Valesano left the Greyhounds, while several others had similar options but stayed.

“There are a variety of reasons why kids leave,” said East coach Mike Randolph, a strong proponent of high school hockey. “In some cases they don’t want to play for me anymore, some have had enough of high school hockey, and some thought they were better than high school hockey.

Karl, who is coach throwing under the bus with the (bold) statement?

It's difficult to find fault with a HS Coach who's done as much for Hockey as Randolph, and many others who are less vocal... but the REAL test of a man's "Character" is how he acts when someone decides to make a decision NOT inline with the Coach's.

A GOOD Middle Manager will only hire people who are better than him. The depth of his Character is then determined when the hired person climbs the ladder past him...

[MNpuckBlog]

I can see how this could be a trend with other sports, but I don't think high school hockey will ever be gone in Minnesota. Sure, there will always be players looking for greener pastures to prep for college puck or get more exposure, but it's still the state of hockey. Players want to play high school hockey and play in the state tournament, where there is more than plenty of exposure to scouts. When there are high school teams in the state who can keep up with and in some cases beat Shattuck's prep team, it speaks pretty highly of the level of play here, and I don't think that will go away.

[blindref]

I think that this is very possible in the next 20-30 years.
You've seen schools like Johnson, Harding and all Minneapolis close or consolidate; the expenses for ice team and travel for a Boys and Girls teams will eventually be too big of a burden for many schools.

Hockey families are used to paying $2,000-$4000 a year for youth hockey dues, ice time, equipment, hotels, gas, team gear, referees and coaches; when your kid finally reach High School you feel like you just got a raise!
If taxpayers ever figure out exactly how much they are subsidizing 40-80 kids in their schools vs. what is spent on everyone else

College Presidents make tough decisions when they shut down football, baseball and wrestling teams because they can't balance their budget.

I hope I'm wrong and I can go watch my future grand kids play in the High School State Tournament.

[Ready2GoYet]

I disagree with the portrayal that our schools are subsidizing a group of kids out of line with other sports. One of the main differences that exists is that schools don't provide ice arenas for their hockey programs, yet they build football fields, basketball courts, baseball fields, swimming pools, running tracks, etc. for the other school sports programs with upfront capital costs in the millions, ongoing operation and maintenance costs, and then reconstruction or upgrade costs in 20-30 years, again often in the millions. Generally speaking, all the school has to do for the hockey program is pay for ice time (coaching, equipment, etc. are provided for all teams to various degrees). Do the math and I think you would likely find that not having to construct, operate, and maintain the arena results in a reduced overall cost for the hockey programs, but for some reason, our schools have not approached it that way.

[mulefarm]

May be getting a little off the subject, but I agree with Ready2. Hockey players and parents have always paid. I would bet no other sport pays a fee for captains practice or open gym. In many open gyms, many of the participants come from outside the district. Not against students using the facilities, but get sick and tired of school administrators always bringing up the cost of a hockey program as a convenient excuse.

[blindref]

I disagree with the portrayal that our schools are subsidizing a group of kids out of line with other sports. One of the main differences that exists is that schools don't provide ice arenas for their hockey programs, yet they build football fields, basketball courts, baseball fields, swimming pools, running tracks, etc. for the other school sports programs with upfront capital costs in the millions, ongoing operation and maintenance costs, and then reconstruction or upgrade costs in 20-30 years, again often in the millions. Generally speaking, all the school has to do for the hockey program is pay for ice time (coaching, equipment, etc. are provided for all teams to various degrees). Do the math and I think you would likely find that not having to construct, operate, and maintain the arena results in a reduced overall cost for the hockey programs, but for some reason, our schools have not approached it that way.

Great point on the capital costs os actual school owned facilities.

[no5hole]

I have never thought of that point before "Ready2GoYet". That is an interesting way of looking at that and spot on.

[almostashappy]

I disagree with the portrayal that our schools are subsidizing a group of kids out of line with other sports. One of the main differences that exists is that schools don't provide ice arenas for their hockey programs, yet they build football fields, basketball courts, baseball fields, swimming pools, running tracks, etc. for the other school sports programs with upfront capital costs in the millions, ongoing operation and maintenance costs, and then reconstruction or upgrade costs in 20-30 years, again often in the millions. Generally speaking, all the school has to do for the hockey program is pay for ice time (coaching, equipment, etc. are provided for all teams to various degrees). Do the math and I think you would likely find that not having to construct, operate, and maintain the arena results in a reduced overall cost for the hockey programs, but for some reason, our schools have not approached it that way.

Great point on the capital costs os actual school owned facilities.

In many (most? all?) Minnesota school districts, the construction costs for gymnasiums and swimming pools and basic athletic fields are/were covered by the State by underwriting bonds for building a new school. This makes sense to me, since the gyms and pools and playing fields are used by every student in the school during gym class. And teaching every kid how to swim in the Land of 10,000 Lakes is a good thing.

While the State doesn't cover the cost of building high school stadiums, it does allow school districts to finance construction projects (including stadiums) by issuing voter-approved general obligation bonds. While this doesn't cover on-going maintenance costs, it does mean that stadiums are built with a separate pot of "extra" money that doesn't come out of school operating budgets. This might allow school boards and school administrators to argue that there isn't upfront construction-related favoritism for one sport over another.

It's fair to point out that initial construction costs are only one part, and that there are significant maintenance and operational costs over the lifetime of a school district-owned football stadium. But aren't most (if not all) of the significant capital costs of maintaining a stadium (things like replacing tracks, or installing new turf or a new scoreboard) typically covered by quasi-independent athletic booster clubs? In our district, if a school wants a new fancy-dancy scoreboard it's the football boosters who have to raise the money (often using concession stand revenue that is lost when a school rents ice time at a city-owned hockey rink).

Finally, a devil's advocate would point out the disproportionate use of these different facilities. Every enrolled student will use a school gymnasium or a middle-school pool at some point during gym class. Football stadiums are used not just for football, but (typically) both boys and girls soccer teams, boys and girls track & field teams and (at least in Metro area) a lot of girls and boys lacrosse teams. In contrast, how many high school students are involved in their school's hockey program?

[mulefarm]

Some great points. Why in the state of hockey and indoor and outdoor rinks, wouldn't' we teach kids to skate? Many schools with their own rinks or one close by use them for phy end. Activities such as boot hockey, broomball, skating lessons and sponge puck hockey.