House Select or A Better House Program?
Hockey is an expensive sport to play. I am not sure what they get in the northern regions, but down here it is $600-$900 for a House Program.
Traditionally, a House program is one practice and one game every week. The House Select program offers 4 additional games per month – in one weekend – and 2 additional practices. Usually for another $200-$700. What exactly does a parent get for this money?
I am not quite sure myself. If the point is for the kids to play with better players, then getting to play with them one weekend a month and practice 2 times a month (usually half ice) doesn’t really accomplish that. Also, how do you decide between House and House Select, anyway?
As a Referee, it seems pretty subjective to me. From a hockey perspective, having a team of all-stars is not always the best thing. Coaches seem to be fixated on this or that – like size or speed, so these teams end up being one-dimensional and forget about passing. How can they learn to work together, if they only practice twice a month or not at all?
I didn’t grow up playing hockey, so maybe I don’t understand. However, I played football. We practiced 4 times a week and played games on Saturday. That is a 4 to 1 ratio. Soccer did the same back then. Now, we seem to think it is good enough to have 1 or 2 practices a week and expect the kids to master whatever sport. It doesn’t work that way.
This begs the question: “If it costs over $700 to play, shouldn’t kids be getting more?”
Travel soccer costs $300-$400 by comparison. Ice costs what it costs and there isn’t much that will change that, but do kids really have to be on House Select or Travel Squads costing thousands of dollars, in order to get adequate instruction? I don’t think so.
House Select is a good idea in theory, but in practice, it should be eliminated. That is hard for me to say, because I supported it up until this year. A strong House League with these Select Players participating every weekend and the additional ice divided among existing teams would do more to promote hockey than trying to develop just 16 kids out of 200 participating at any given age level.
An additional $50-$100 fee increase will not price out any more kids than the current high fees already do. My son plays House and he is one of the few players still using a $10 wooden stick these days. If parents can spend $100 on a stick for a 10 year-old then they will definitely see the value of $100 fee increase to help their children become better hockey players.
The bottom line is that a Better House program is cheaper to implement, develops more players and benefits the stronger players by having them be leaders on their teams.
Let’s stop making money and start making hockey players.