Page 1 of 1
Shorten season to 20 games?
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 9:39 pm
by gopherhockey21
The leading story on myfoxhockey.com is a proposal to shorten the season to 20 games. This is to save money. What are your thoughts on this? I don't like it at all.
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 9:48 pm
by Teak
I like the BSM coach Ken Pauly's explanation. The games cut from their schedule would be the big money-makers: i.e., those non-conference matchups. (Something like $3000 per game in net profit.) And in their place, they would have to pay around $400 for practice time at a rink. So, by having a shorter schedule, they would actually lose MORE money than if the schedule remained at 25.
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:14 pm
by Bruins
This will lead to many high school players leaving early to juniors. They should be thinking about increasing the game amount to 35, not decreasing it. This will only hurt Minnesota High School Hockey, I hope they rethink this.
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:18 pm
by wbmd
The shortening of the season would affect practically all sports. It's just not the hockey season that could be decreased due to budget cuts.
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:18 pm
by midwesthockeyscout
I believe the MSHSL desperately wants this to be the absolute last resort for cost cutting measures.
It appears that the majority of concerns are the outstate teams and travel.
Some of the other aspects that I am in favor of is:
1) combining varsity/JV ice times atleast once a week. This would save most programs an average $100 per week .. This could save $1500 a season, if implemented just once a week.. and allow for travel costs to be covered.
2) there was discussion that the MSHSL would leave it up to the individual program to dictate how many games it plays, based on budgetary restrictions
And my personal suggestion???
Let's get the Minnesota Lottery to create scratch off games specifically designed to create revenue sharing that can help offset one of Minnesota's greatest resources...... High School hockey.
I only dabble a little in scratch off games, and that's because I am not an outdoorsman, and I could care less about restocking lakes with fish.
The lottery contributed $23 million towards 31 projects in 2008, or an average of over $700K per project.
Of the approximately 240 boys and girls high school teams in Minnesota, that would mean each program could get about $3000.
Now, I know I am dreaming about something like this, but, if we take a revenue stream that already exists, maybe tweak it a bit, and have funds allocated towards HS hockey, this would help the majority of programs.
It's state money... it doesn't come as a result of raising city taxes, property taxes, etc, and is a result of disposable income people are already using.
Just my take.
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:20 pm
by wbmd
There is already a thread discussing this subject.
http://www.ushsho.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=19286
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:25 pm
by gopherhockey21
Sorry I didn't go back five pages to check.
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:40 pm
by wbmd
gopherhockey21 wrote:
Sorry I didn't go back five pages to check.
It's only back one page.
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:56 pm
by HSH1212
Shouldn't the games be bringing in more revenue, especially the big high school games around the state like Warroad/Roseau and East/Cloquet etc.? The logic seems flawed. Unless the rinks are racking in all the profits, the school and the Minnesota High School League should be bringing in at least some money. What gives? Games make money, practices cost money.