This is the scenario...
You are on a team that for the last several years has only had one team ("A" or DII or DIII). This was partially due to a lack or players and partially because the school will only give you enough $$$ to pay for one team.
Things have changed for this season and you believe you would have enough players to put together a competitve A and B team. However, you do not get school funding for a second team, so this would dramatically increase the programs budget.
Here is the question...
What would YOU do?
- A Team's player fee is significantly less (takes full benefit from school support) while the B team's player fee covers the cost of team registration?
- Both teams split the cost of adding the second team? This seems to be the most "fair" solution, however it will upset the returning "A" players that are used to paying less money and may not see (or appreciate) the addition of the second team
I know my school has interm budgeting which allows organizations to ask for more money because of an unforseen request. I'm not sure if your school does that but it could only help.
I think you should go with your first scenario, using it for the A team, by not giving money to the second team you can see if they are truely committed and will see if they will last the year, then when next year rolls around you can change it up.
I think you should go with your first scenario, using it for the A team, by not giving money to the second team you can see if they are truely committed and will see if they will last the year, then when next year rolls around you can change it up.
That is a good way to look at it. I was looking at it from another angle...treat the money from the school almost like a "mini-scholarship". Obviously we would call it something different, but the program would have (insert better name than scholarship) to award to the top 10 players.
For a school program I suggest you make it completly fair accross the board. It will unfortunatly cost the returning players additional money but at least it will cost everyone additional money. If you force the B team players to pay additional money it is possible that you may loose some of those players.
The higher skilled players on the team need to realize that fielding the B team may cost them a little more money but it will strengthen the entire program in the long run.
One thing to consider first might be the structure of the organization. Are the teams going to share practices, hotel rooms, etc. or are the teams essentially going to be two different organizations with two separate budgets? I'm assuming the teams are going to be sharing a lot of costs but I don't know.
Personally I think the fairest way would be to split all of the costs evenly and split out the school assistance evenly. If shared costs (eg. shared practice time, pucks, etc.) take up 50% of the budget then they should get 50% of the school assistance. I would then split the remaining school funds up to the separate A and B team expenses (registration fees, tournament fees, travel costs, etc.) based on what percentage of the budget they fill.
See the attached image for a table of what I mean.
***Keep in mind that the numbers are completely arbitrary and depending on the relationship between school assistance and your budget the fees could change greatly.
Dave Hollingshead #6
President - Ohio State Club Roller Hockey
For a school program I suggest you make it completly fair accross the board. It will unfortunatly cost the returning players additional money but at least it will cost everyone additional money. If you force the B team players to pay additional money it is possible that you may loose some of those players.
The higher skilled players on the team need to realize that fielding the B team may cost them a little more money but it will strengthen the entire program in the long run.
I agree 100%. Another option is to do some fundraisers throughout the year to try and recover some of the costs.
another option is to find someone who knows how to write a grant and speak with the university office in charge of accepting and seeking grants. The title of said office varies from school to school, however, it is quite common for a school, or any government agency for that matter, to sit with considerable additional funds which do not get expended, and at the end of the fiscal year are forced into expenditures on numerous things, i.e., I would not simply give up on seeking additional funding. It is so written
This issue has come up at Shippensburg a few times and decided that the success of the A team is more important than that of a B team. Some of our top players would not play with fees that are raised so that lesser players could play. Because of this we always carry our max DII team at 16 players. The most committed B players and the A team making up that composition. It has worked out well for us over the years and we will continue to do this in the foreseeable future. However, each school has its own circumstances and the choice should really be made by the club as they best know what fits their needs.
One thing to consider first might be the structure of the organization. Are the teams going to share practices, hotel rooms, etc. or are the teams essentially going to be two different organizations with two separate budgets? I'm assuming the teams are going to be sharing a lot of costs but I don't know.
Personally I think the fairest way would be to split all of the costs evenly and split out the school assistance evenly. If shared costs (eg. shared practice time, pucks, etc.) take up 50% of the budget then they should get 50% of the school assistance. I would then split the remaining school funds up to the separate A and B team expenses (registration fees, tournament fees, travel costs, etc.) based on what percentage of the budget they fill.
See the attached image for a table of what I mean.
***Keep in mind that the numbers are completely arbitrary and depending on the relationship between school assistance and your budget the fees could change greatly.
I like the way you have this setup with the weight "benefit" from the funding.
We had this scenario last year at the University of Missouri. I had all players pay the same amount, regardless of which team they were on. I couldn't justify making the B team players pay more, especially since league fees for the B team were less.
The way it worked out for us, it was a bit cheaper for the A team players to have a B team where everyone pays the same amount than if we didn't have a B team at all. Since both teams practiced at the same time, it pretty much cut the per-player, per-practice costs in half.
If I remember correctly, Drexel charges the A and B teams the same fees. Your situation probably depends a lot on the group of guys you've got though. If suddenly charging your A guys is going to scare them away, maybe its not the best course. For the growth of a strong club though, it might be more beneficial to spread costs evenly to everyone. The main thing to stress to all the players is that (and I say this based on what the fees are for DU) the amount of money you spend and the amount of rink time you get in return is an absolute steal.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by RowanPhil
Bookmarks