Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
one price fits all vs tiered pricing would indicate that the lower tiered coaches would be recieving inferior pay for their time unless all of the coaches were to pool their fees and be paid equally out of that.

then there is the question of how to determine a tier? what happens if that team does great and moves up? do they pay more, or less if they move down?

one price seems to fit as you'd expect same level of coaching and not expect that your higher or lower fee means you're paying to be on a good or lesser team, so to speak; but rather paying to ensure that the younger and less experienced will recieve the same level of coaching and expertise regardless of ability of the player. Thus, hopefully all levels of players will continue to grow in ablility and confidence.


It's not realistic that you should expect the same level of coaching from top to bottom in a grade - you get MC or one of the other directors at the top and they are the best. Below that you get good coaching but definately not the best that the program has to offer and that the top teams are getting. As such, I would think you should pay less for that and even the lower team coaches would be ok with that and undersand where they are in the pecking order when it comes to compensation.


and you expect that the parents who are paying their fees to be ok with that sentiment? I think that is unrealistic...

All will want their kid to be exposed to the best that their money can buy and expect a program of the level of Express to establish uniform levels of coaching and not a "pecking order" of economy coaching.

would you settle for that?


Uniform levels? - you really believe that? what kind of fantasy land do you live in? Would the Express have the guts to advertise "uniform levels of coaching" regardless of team? Of course not, nobody would believe it. Please, we are adults and the concept of "A" team, "B" team and "C" team is not foreign to anybody. It's ok - until you want to charge "A" team service for a "C" team experience. All I'm saying is that the Express should try tiered pricing (as others have) and see how it goes. I bet the response would be overwhelmingly positive.


its a discusion...not an argument. clearly all options are on the table for review. it was asked for an argument for or against...it has to start somewhere.

I stillfeel that bargain hunters then should not be disappointed with bargain results...as they say, "ya gets whats ya pays for"..

is that really what you want? I'd rather pay more and insist on higher levels of coaching; else move to a different program to satisfy tht need.

hopefully, all of the high LIE fees will go towards that end. (I know...wishful thinking!)


Its not just the difference in the coaching (there is no way that Mike C or anybody of similar caliber is going to spend an entire hot summer coaching a "C" team.) Aside from that, its the entire rest of the experience. The "A" teams are practicing and doing tournaments/scrimmages all-year round. The "B" and "C" teams won't see much of eachother until the summer. In the older grades the "C" and most of the "B" (except for a couple) will not get much recruiting support/exposure because the directors are completely consumed with placing the "A" team kids. Thats fine as many (except a few) on the "B" and "C" are probably not good enough to play college anyway - at least not D1. That's ok and I can understand that the directors want to spend their time with the kids that have the highest chance of being placed onto D1 rosters - no issue there, I get it. But, those disparities in the overall experience justify not paying the same price across the board.