Final thoughts on the NTDP

 

The four-year budget for USA Hockey’s National Team Development Program is $13 million. Is there a better use for that money?

 

By Kevin Hartzell
Let’s Play Hockey Columnist
 

I have received a good amount of feedback from hockey professionals in our Minnesota area on my questions asked of USA Hockey and its National Team Development Program (NTDP) and the answers provided by Jim Johannson. When I say hockey professionals, I am referring to coaches, player agents, scouts and so on. Not one, let me repeat, NOT ONE supports the idea of the NTDP.

 

 

I find that impactful. I learned long ago to believe mostly in what my own eyes and ears tell me.  I certainly haven’t talked to everyone, but I have talked to several handfuls, and the program is not held in high regard by folks in our area.

 

When you consider the amount of money being spent on the program, it is seen by many in our area as a misguided focus of resources. I don’t know if the money – the over $3.2 million a year – could be appropriated differently or if the benefactor (the NHL) would consider a repositioning of the money. But in any such formula, there are opportunity costs … what opportunities are missed that might achieve the same or better results with the same or even less resources committed? We don’t know the answer to that.

 

First, we need to acknowledge that, because hockey folk in Minnesota have a view of things, it doesn’t mean we are right. As any reader of my columns knows, I challenge our thinking within our borders as well.  I don’t think because we live in the State of Hockey that we have a monopoly on all the best hockey ideas. I do know I don’t have the answers. I just try and challenge our thoughts ... and in this case, challenge what has become status quo thinking with the NTDP.

 

Let’s look at this from an opportunity cost scenario. Let’s first assume that what Johannson says in his response is true, that the NTDP does things better than other programs. It still comes at a cost of over $3.2 million per year. Over a four-year budget, that comes to $13 million (with a very small upward adjustment for inflation). In exchange for the $13 million over the next four years, I am reading Johansson’s response to say that the benefits include:

• A better training and development program for some of our very best young players.

• The U.S. now finishes one spot higher in the various world tournaments and has captured a various number of international competition medals … and will continue to do so.

• An increasing number of players drafted by NHL teams and more players populating NHL teams … and will continue to do so.

 

With or without the NTDP, we would still field World Under-17 and Under-18 teams, World Juniors and Olympics, as well as World Junior Challenge teams. Players would get international experiences with or without the program, though I suspect they get more with the NTDP. Jim and I would agree that many have contributed to the above listed success. I might be missing something here, but I believe that covers the main benefits.

 

So the first questions include: Are those goals worthy of over $3.2 million per year and $13 million dollars over the next four years? The second question is: Are there better ways to spend this money and still achieve the same or even better results? Finally, would the benefactor consider a better plan if one were devised? These are complex questions.

 

One of my first thoughts is this: Why is the USHL considered not being capable of achieving the same results with the same players? What would the results be if the same top-rated players who populate the NTDP were allowed to simply populate USHL teams? Would these high draft picks not be as high of picks? Might there be more high draft picks? And the USHL with some teams making money … maybe it could be argued more teams would make more money when more marquee players are added to their rosters. That I think would be a good thing. Could a better plan for the $3.2 million then be totally available to be invested elsewhere (again assuming the NHL as benefactor would go along with this new and improved proposal for spending their money).

 

The above scenario costs USA Hockey nothing other than organizing and executing the world tournaments. And who knows, with wide-open competition for the teams, maybe the teams might even be better. That’s the way it works in Canada. Also, the arrogance that many of us believe is inadvertently created with the NTDP would be gone.

 

But there was an assumption made long ago by USA Hockey that the USHL could not attract and develop these top players as well as a program like the NTDP. Their assumption may have been right at the time. Maybe it is still true. Maybe this is a bigger question for the USHL: What are you doing or not doing that you cannot provide the same level of training for your players that the best players must go to the NTDP? That is also a great question in this whole debate.

 

In his argument, Johansson states that the NTDP competition includes games against older and stronger players. That I believe includes the USHL as well as an occasional college game. But doesn’t competition on a USHL team allow its players competition against older and stronger players each game, but also in each and every practice?

 

Together, the NTDP teams are currently in last place in the USHL, so that tells me there is better practice competition out there within the average USHL team. The older and stronger players could present greater challenges in practice as well. In my opinion, great practice is where players are made. Games are where you are tested. 

 

We could debate and debate and debate this. We Minnesotans may be strongly in agreement that the NTDP is a misguided use of resources. But what is the alternative? Have alternatives been considered? 

 

In my desire to be part of the solution, I am offering up an alternative budget. I will assume for the sake of this argument that the NHL as benefactor will continue to help us develop the best hockey in America if we don’t lose the benefits of the current program Higher finishes and medals in world tournaments, and continued development of potential NHL players will continue to be goals of the new budget. So here is my four-year, $13 million budget proposal.

 

1. As a goal to bring the USHL up to speed with top training practices, we will continue to hire one of the best humans (coaches) available. He will develop a website that is a resource to coaches of top talent, including those in the USHL, NAHL and high school. He will mentor and visit all junior coaches, especially those in the USHL and its younger and newest coaches. He will coach the coaches.

 

We will pay this coach well – $175,000 a year. But instead of influencing 25 players, he will influence the coaches who influence the nearly 1,000 junior players playing at the Tier 1 and Tier 2 levels. We will give him an assistant at $75,000 per year. These coaches will also coach the World Under-18 team and assist the World Under-17 and World Junior Challenge teams but allow other coaches to coach some of these teams. Our goal will be to develop more elite coaches and more elite players.

Four-year investment: $1 million
 

 

2. Retain the USA Hockey strength and conditioning coach. He will develop a resource library accessible on the web for all junior and high school teams. He will make site visits first and foremost to USHL teams and help develop strength programs for our top prospects individually, but also for each of the 40 Tier 1 and 2 junior teams. He will consult on rooms, equipment, best training practices and so on. Instead of influencing the 40-plus NDTP players, he will create the ability to influence all the junior players and the strength trainers who work with them daily. He will also conduct free week-long workshops in the summer for all current and aspiring junior strength coaches. We will pay him well – $150,000 per year.

Four-year investment: $600,000
 

 

3. Each year, a strength and training budget that will be made available to any Tier 1 or Tier 2 junior team. This budget will be to construct strength rooms and improve equipment. Awards will be as a large as $25,000 to improve strength facilities for individual teams. At $250,000 per year, we could improve facilities for 10 teams a year, all 40 teams over the four years. The USA Hockey strength coach will assist in directing these funds.

Four-year investment: $1 million.
 

 

4. Some teams have issues with athletic training staff. Some have a hard time getting medical personnel to practices to better care for our young people. The same scenario here, but smaller chunks to more teams. Up to $10,000 awards for 25-plus teams per year.

Four-year investment: $1 million.
 

 

5. If you read John Hamre’s article in Let’s Play Hockey recently – “Replacing Minnesota’s aging ice arena systems” (LPH Feb. 5), there is a real problem growing for funding many older arenas as they need to change over to newer, more efficient cooling systems. These changes are basically being forced upon the industry for both regulatory and cost issues. But the cost of initially doing so might put many smaller town arenas at risk. The list in Minnesota is long and I suspect long in some other states as well. 

 

We will create a large fund: $1 million per year and put out grants at $25,000 to $50,000 per facility. USA Hockey will also lobby the various state legislatures to obtain some state matching dollars as well. We can support as many as 40 arenas per year.

Four-year investment: $4 million

 

 

6. A program slush fund for youth associations around the country. Starter programs, special needs, goalie equipment that can be rented yearly, etc. Grants would be in increments of $5,000 to $10,000. We could help 25 to 50 associations per year with a $250,000 budget.

Four-year investment: $1 million (maybe we double this line item to include subsidizing growth and retention coordinators in associations around the country.)
 

 

7. We will identify and subsidize other worthy development programs with needed and stated objectives, such as the Elite League in Minnesota and other such leagues. Grants of  $50,000 per worthy identified league times five regional leagues per year.

Four-year investment: $1 million
 

 

8. At this point, I still have $3.4 million to budget for. Because I know I don’t have all the answers – actually too few answers – I am suggesting one more budget item. For fun and a little internal competition, we consider a one-time $15,000 investment: $5,000 for an all-expense paid Sandals Caribbean Vacation for two, along with $10,000 cash, for the USA Hockey staff member who comes up with the best way to refine this budget and also smartly invest the remaining $3.4 million. It wouldn’t be the first time a progressive company offered incentives to improve its product.
 

 

I would love to see this budget refined by someone smarter than I and then analyzed on whether or not the potential benefits of this reappropriation of resources are greater than the current one which is spent entirely on a small group of individuals. We would greatly improve the USHL and NAHL in coaching, training and facilities. There would be more resources available for more. Maybe we would develop more top prospects!

 

We would affect more kids at the grassroots level. We would still take great teams to world tournaments and more. We would address some current problems like the rinks and their outdated refrigeration systems. Four years from now, we can create a budget that addresses new issues.

 

Once this proposed four-year, $13 million budget is refined by someone smarter than I within USA Hockey and if deemed better, (and I stress, IF DEEMED BETTER), it could be presented to those at the NHL associated with this grant and debated whether this is a better use of the funds.

 

This is a fun and potentially beneficial exercise. I am hopeful we’ll see USA Hockey put this exercise to work and see if they can find a better way for the $3.2 million budget. Maybe they can, maybe they can’t, but a good exercise for sure! I am hoping that USA Hockey employs this exercise and reports back to us on their findings.

 

Kevin Hartzell was most recently the head coach of Lillehammer in Norway’s GET-Ligaen. A St. Paul native and forward for the University of Minnesota from 1978-82, Hartzell coached in the USHL from 1983-89 with the St. Paul Vulcans and from 2005-12 with the Sioux Falls Stampede. His columns have appeared in Let’s Play Hockey since the late 1980s. His new book “Leading From the Ice” is now available at amazon.com.