Parents and players need to constantly educate themselves. More important before running all over the country chasing tryout camps, is having the knowledge of what is actually going on that may impact those teams you are attending camps for.
Every year, twice a year, rules are discussed at USA Hockey meetings. This year summer meetings begin on Wednesday June 8th.
These are important rules, and important discussions that many of you are not aware even take place. Yet, changes in the rules effect you the most. If your state legislature changes the speed limit next week, and you aren’t aware, yet you get pulled over for speeding, who’s fault is it?
The USPHL has made some rule change proposals to USA Hockey regarding the Player Bill of Rights that I wrote about last week, and now I will cover their proposals for changes in Standards as they relate to Tier II and Tier I. Yes, standard that would effect the current NAHL and USHL teams, and any potential move for the USPHL up the Tier system.
It was mentioned in a Death Pool a few weeks ago, that the USPHL would attempt to make a move to Tier II in the future. This move has been under discussion for the better part of a year, and was originally slated for this coming season.
The USPHL in an attempt to change the rules, and make an easier pathway to a higher Tier has proposed that Tier II teams that do not have the minimum 1500 seats in their arenas be allowed to secure Tier II status by providing a letter of credit to the “league” which would waive the seating requirement. HERE
The USPHL then in an attempt to reduce the financial standards required in order for Tier I certification from an Ownership net worth of Ten Million Dollars to an Ownership net worth of Two and a Half Million Dollars and submission of a One Million Dollar bond, insurance policy, or letter of credit. HERE What it does not say is who that additional bond, policy or letter of credit is to be held by. Unlike the preceding proposal where it is to be held by the league to waive the seating requirement.
The problem with both of these proposals, is neither focusses in on what it is exactly that the USPHL wants. It is in effect two requests for rule changes that have no real basis of “need”. The USHL and NAHL are operating just fine under the rules as they are written.
The real issue though can be found in a rule change proposal submitted by the NAHL as it would effect Tier II standards. While lengthy, it is definitely worth the read. HERE
Essentially, the proposal would update current USA Hockey standards to those standards already being used by the NAHL. But, there is one section that goes right to the heart of the USPHL plan to climb the Tier ladder.
Multiple sources have reported that the plan to finance the USPHL climb up the Tier ladder was tied to raising “fees” across the board to all its member teams to pay for the Premier Division to claim a new Tier label.
Think about that. Every player in every league, on every team, every owner already in the USPHL, would be forced to fund a handful of teams that are privately owned. The concept is essentially to have other people fund privately owned businesses, while the owners of those businesses assume little to no greater financial risk. It really is a tremendous concept.
The NAHL proposal though would kill that option as one key sentence states;
“No team shall charge or receive any financial subsidy or tuition to or from its players, or anyone on behalf of its players.”
It also raises operating budget standards, staffing standards, facility standards, broadcast standards, and minimum number of games to be played in a season.
Yet another critical change in the NAHL proposal is;
“Ownership of the team, upon admission to and throughout its term of ownership, shall have a net worth of no less than $4,000,000 either corporately, individually, or jointly.”
Whereas the current standard sets a One Million Dollar standard.
What may turn out to be the two most important changes proposed by the NAHL would be raising the minimum standard for a Tier II league from eight to twelve teams, and the Tier II league structure must be a not for profit.
But the real question that no one has answered goes right to the heart of these rule change proposals.
If, as many in the USPHL say, the USPHL is just as good as the USHL and NAHL, why does the USPHL need these rule changes to raise their Tier level?
It is like asking General Motors to remove all the airbags, and other safety equipment from a Corvette so you can buy one at a discount. I don’t think General Motors is going to find that’s a good idea.
If, as expected, the USPHL rule change proposals are shot down, what then? I think many of us already know the answer to that question.
Joseph Kolodziej – Publisher
