You mention "having a top end privately funded system". Don't we already have that with "Choice"? It has been in place for years now, and it serves the people who want that very well. If that's the case, it appears that you simply want to see more "Choice" programs. It's supply and demand then, and if the demand was there for more "Choice", other private clubs would have jumped on it by now.zambonidriver wrote:i am offering a solution with a choice. The idea is to grow the game. Triple A programs in other states cost 3 times as much.If kids are done with a sport by 9th grade something is broken. The biggest problem that associations face are the people who think that their kid is the next Gretzky or Amanda Kessel. Those people will pay whatever it takes. They are also the ones that want their kid to play up or play boys. Buy having a top end privately funded system you then take those people out of the association picture. Who cares where the Triple A programs find their ice. The idea is to make the game more affordable to all. If you allow triple A to operate and make association hockey more recreational say 20 teams that practice two times a week and play on weekends their will be plenty of ice and you might see the price actually go down. Again don't Start association play until Christmas break. Short season low cost. CAA played once a week from Jan through March we got plenty of games in and the kids had a ball.Lace'emUp wrote:In this discussion of allowing some type of dual AAA and association hockey to co-exist, it has been noted several times that there's "plenty" of ice time to achieve this. I'd have to disagree. Correct me if I'm wrong (and I probably am), but many of the ice arena's in the area are built with pubic funding. In some cases (lets use Blaine), the arena funding and upgrades to arenas are in partnership with an association or school district (the association or school district is paying part of the bill). Because of this, agreements are in place that give associations certain percentages of "prime time" ice.
If true, how much ice time will a AAA club really get their hands on? I know for a fact that a bigger AAA outfit in the area gets ice very very cheap (almost 1/2 of "prime time") to run their programs in the spring, summer and fall. I also know that club charges about $1500 per season for 4 tournaments, about 40 hours of practice ice, and dryland. Those numbers are similar to other AAA clubs throughout the Twin Cities.
If these clubs operated in "prime time", the cost will almost double to $3000 due to ice costs alone. Are "advanced" players willing to pay that? AND, can the AAA clubs even get any decent ice without disturbing agreements that are already in place between arena's and associations? For $3000, I can get association hockey AND summer AAA hockey, and I'm perfectly fine with that.
It also appears that cost of "prime time" club hockey or ice time availability are not an issue with your solution. That being the case, why not just attend Gentry or Bauer Emerson? Boat loads of ice time with specialized attention. It costs a lot, but that's not a factor here.
Here's my amendments to your possible solution. Just as MN Hockey has decided to run it's own Tier 1 teams, why not let each District run it's own AAA squirt, PW, bantam, 10U and 12U teams? Open tryouts, with the best 15-18 skaters and 2 goalies making each team. Taking advantage of the existing infrastructure in place (district management), teams can still have access to ice at reasonable costs and times. Plus, there can actually be an organized "league" where district teams play each other. Outstate districts would have issues with travel times for practices and games. But they'd have this issues either way - whether it's run privately or by the district. And again, cost is not an issue with your solution.