ARE PAY-TO-PLAY TEAMS LIMITING COACHES' OPPORTUNITIES? Why would any young pay-to-play coach pass up an NAHL head coaching, or even major junior assistant, opportunity?

Tough question, is it not?

The easy answer to the question is it's always going to be about the money. There are many pay-to-play level coaches getting way more than their free-to-play counterparts. Maybe that's why there are so many talented coaches that never climb the ladder with the same enthusiasm as players.

I'm guilty of it as well. After a short stint working in the National Hockey League, the transition to junior hockey proved to be right in my comfort zone. There's less pressure and the measure of success is tremendously different. So I get it.

Now here's the rub. In order for teams to be able to give pay-to-play coaches more money, most teams have to get it straight from the players. As a result, parents are trying to avoid taking out a second mortgage to cover the costs of continued participation. Most teams are now charging up and over $10,000 (plus housing) for a season of junior hockey. 

Young coaches are holding onto pay-to-play jobs, paying in excess of $70,000 a year, instead of taking a pay cut to move up to the North American Hockey League or other free-to-play leagues. 

Now we are seeing a bottleneck that stifles the development of up and coming coaching talents.

I feel that the only way to open the system up is for free-to-play teams to streamline the payroll while taping into additional revenue streams. As operational costs continue to rise, teams can no longer strictly depend on the same old revenue generation models.

The separation of the coaching and general manager jobs has only escalated costs while providing minimal additional benefits. Director of Player Personal jobs at the junior level does not make much sense either. Paid scouts, where the team is also covering the expenses and a small salary? In 2025, that's also unnecessary.

"As a NCAA hockey coach, it's interesting to see NAHL teams with such large staffs," said one D3 coach Tuesday. "When I was coaching in that league, it was me and one assistant, now teams are bursting from the seams with guys."

And he's right, a large number of teams are ridiculously overstaffed. That's the primary reason clubs can't afford to attract quality coaches. If three of those jobs (head coach, general manager, director of hockey operations) were combined into a single job, teams could afford to pay considerably more. 

Minor professional leagues, outside of the American Hockey League, typically operate with much leaner hockey operation payrolls than half the NAHL. 

Amarillo is a prime example. Harry Mahood is the primary reason why so many candidates simply declined the opportunity.  He's also the reason so many have walked away.  And that's aside from Mahood's strain on the team's payroll.

Is it not ironic that the most successful teams in the NAHL also have coaches that are among the highest paid? 

Considering the new reality surrounding NCAA Division I eligibility for major junior, and even minor professional, hockey players, Tier II level leagues should reconsider what it is going to take to remain competitive. 

Doing so would certainly open up the developmental path for the best coaches. The changes could also mean lower costs for pay-to-players along the way.