Last Updated on Thursday, 22 January 2015 09:17
An attempt to hold USA Hockey accountable for the over $3 million per year National Team Development Program
By Kevin Hartzell
Let’s Play Hockey Columnist
As I travel about the arenas in Minnesota, I often get to hear what’s on the minds of many Minnesota hockey enthusiasts. This includes fans, coaches and scouts. One of the issues that is still hotly debated around our rinks is USA Hockey’s National Team Development Program (NTDP). It is a program that is run under the USA Hockey umbrella for the development of some of our nation’s best 17- and 18-year-old male talent. The teams (an Under-17 team and an Under-18 team) are housed in Ann Arbor, Mich., where this young American talent is groomed for the elite stage. In most years, Minnesota loses a small handful of our elite high school players to the program.
The measure and mission of the program seem fuzzy to many in our state. The costs associated with the program are maddening to some. It is a program that has a lot of Minnesotans wondering, debating and even angry. Back in the 1990s, I had a conversation with then-USA Hockey leader Walter Bush at Bloomington Ice Garden. He asked me at the time, in regards to the newly founded National Team Development Program, to reserve judgment on the merits of the program until the program had time to evolve.
Over these years, I have observed the program from various vantage points and through the eyes of many others. Like many others, I have opinions, but I have to acknowledge my own bias. We all see things and evaluate things through our own prisms. One of my prism filters is my belief in small government as a value. I believe in the concept of the original vision of the formation of United States of America; small government with the emphasis on the power of the individual to create and produce.
I have viewed the NTDP through this prism. Right or wrong, it is a program in my eyes that represents some of what I don’t like to see in America; a program of and by centralized government. That doesn’t mean that the program doesn’t have strengths. But unlike USA Hockey’s ADM model where USA Hockey shares important player development information with their affiliates and the affiliates choose to implement the information as they see fit (a program that I think has been relatively successful), the NTDP is totally housed and conducted by USA Hockey. And once government institutes a program, it often becomes inefficient, resistant to change and almost impossible to remove.
I have known many a person who has been involved with the NTDP and USA Hockey, and to a person, they are good people. But I have also known more than a few of these people to acknowledge some of the faults they see in the NTDP but take an individual stance that the program has its own inertia and very hard to change. So they don’t try too hard to change the program. Some, and I think especially those associated with USA Hockey, feel that challenging the program is politically unwise.
Rather than write another opinion piece that would be just another of a great numbers of things said or written about the program, I listened to a good number of coaches and scouts around our rinks and with them and on behalf of all, submitted what I hope are some pointed questions for USA Hockey regarding the NTDP.
The 2012-13 NTDP budget showed the program spending over $3 million on this relatively small group of elite players. That money is a resource to all of us involved in American hockey. In that regard, we should all hold USA Hockey accountable for a solidly run and worthwhile expenditure of everyone’s hockey capital.
The following questions were submitted to USA Hockey’s Jim Johannson. Jim is a Minnesota native who has been with USA Hockey for 14 years and now serves as the head of hockey operations for USA Hockey. Jim cares deeply about hockey and the players who play the game. These questions were intended to be pointed and tough, and for all of us to be better educated with the status and value of our NTDP.
On Jan. 6, I sent Jim a text alerting him to an inquiry he would be receiving via e-mail. He responded that same day and texted that he would look for the e-mail which would contain my questions.
The next day, on Jan. 7, I sent the following questions, along with the above paragraphs so they knew from where these questions had evolved and their basic context. I asked for a response by Jan. 16, so we could prepare for print of this edition of Let’s Play Hockey.
On Jan. 14, a full week after I submitted the questions, LPH received a call from Dave Fischer, USA Hockey’s Senior Director of Communications, saying he may not be able to get us the answers by the 16th as they were busy. I followed up with an e-mail to Fischer later that day, saying we had the story planned for the cover for the Jan. 22, edition of LPH. I asked if Monday, Jan. 19, could help him and give him enough time.
The next day, Jan. 15, Fischer responded. In his e-mail, he said that my e-mail/questions had been referred to him via Johansson. He said all media matters are referred to the communications department. He also said in his e-mail that because of their busy workload at USA Hockey, that they may not be able to fulfill our request for answers to our questions.
That same day, I wrote an e-mail follow-up to Johansson, saying I was disappointed that our questions would not be answered by a good hockey man within USA Hockey. And make no mistake, I consider Jim a good hockey man. I was hoping for his perspective on these issues. I asked why it was that a good hockey man like he could not answer our questions and instead that the questions would be referred to and answered by a director of communications.
As of late in the evening on Jan. 20, as we prepare to go to press with this week’s edition of LPH, we still have not received a response from USA Hockey to these questions. Giving answers to one’s constituency should, in my opinion, be the duty of any governing body.
Matt VanVoorhis (Edina, Minn.), now a sophomore defenseman at Denver, played for the U.S. National Team Development Program during the 2009-10 and 2010-11 seasons.
The space for this edition of LPH is reserved for this Q & A, so we are running with our questions. You can decide for yourself if you think the questions are fair and should have taken any length of time to answer. I hope that the answers to our questions are coming and plan to print them once they arrive. So look for part 2: USA Hockey’s answers to Minnesota’s questions regarding the NTDP in a coming issue.
The following are the questions submitted to USA Hockey on behalf of all us stakeholders and constituents of USA Hockey.
1. What is the current budget … total money being spent on the National Team Development Program?
2. a) Where does this money come from? b) Is USA Hockey compensated dependent on number of NHL draft picks in the program? If yes, how does that work?
3. The other top hockey countries do not have such a program as our NTDP yet they continue to produce great talent. Why is the NTDP program needed?
4. The most common question asked and maybe the most important question is this: How does USA Hockey measure the success of the program? This is a question I hear often. It usually starts with a dialogue that sounds like this: “It can’t be draft picks, because these top kids will be top drafts wherever they play. The NTDP finishes consistently low in the USHL standings. They have humans for coaches. Just how do they measure their success and justify the great amount of money being spent?”
5. Over $1.2 million is spent on staff alone, according to the 2013 budget. How is this broken down by staff member?
6. Many people argue that the money, as much as $60,000-$70,000 per player in the program, could be better spent on many number of things. For example, subsidizing the Elite League in Minnesota or improving the training opportunities in the USHL, or even the great developing need in updating arenas and their outdated refrigeration systems. If the NTDP training program is superior, then why not spend the time and resources on bringing other programs up to speed with these current training techniques to affect more players?
7. It is argued by many, that when it comes to the Under-18 World Championship, the USA should win or certainly do very well because we send a TEAM that has been playing together for an extended time while other countries send a group of individuals. The U.S. has done well in these single-age tournaments, but just OK in multiple age tournaments like World Juniors and Olympics. So, really, what has the program accomplished and why has the World U-18 and U-17 tournaments seemingly taken on such importance to USA Hockey?
8. Since the NTDP has competed in the USHL, they have consistently finished in the bottom third of the league’s East Division. Why, if a Minnesota kid is considering leaving their high school program for a higher level of competition, would they not choose to play with the stronger and better teams in the USHL versus the NTDP?
9. Seeing that most USHL teams are competitively stronger that the NTDP team, as evidenced by their annual placement in the standings, why does USA Hockey not save the almost $3 million per year and simply allow these players (most of whom will be high draft picks regardless) to populate USHL teams?
10. When looking back over time and assessing the talent within the NTDP, what percentage of the players rostered in the program have been – in hindsight – assessed to have been in the top percentile … or top 25 of their given class? 60 percent? 70 percent? 80 percent? 90 percent?
11. It has been said by many that if indeed the program has great value as a developmental model, why not allow the top 40 to play in the USHL (as they are going to be top recruits/drafts anyway) and recruit the second 40 and see if you can elevate them to the level of or near the top 40? Some argue that this strategy would better develop talent in the USA. How would you answer their argument?
12. I have argued that it is counterproductive to wear USA crested uniforms in domestic league games such as those in the USHL. I have argued that wearing the USA crest in USHL games or other domestic tournaments has unintentional consequences of creating arrogance among those players within the NTDP (our crest means we are the chosen and better), and also resentment among those players and teams who compete against them. I have seen this firsthand. We should all be in this battle ultimately together. Bottom line, in domestic events, all players represent USA Hockey in their own way. Why not wear a “neutral” uniform when competing in the USHL and other domestic events?
13. If an elite player does not choose to participate in the program, are they given less consideration to the various USA world teams? Do those players who choose to play in the program get extra consideration for world teams because they do participate?
14. Please frame for the Minnesota elite player’s family why their son should consider playing in the development program and not for their high school team or a USHL team.
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.
