On point 1: I'm not suggesting the league belongs to them. I'm suggesting some parents used to a balanced scale may grumble because their idea of fair play accustomed to will be challenged.
I think at some point we probably need to get to a place where we don't think of the Saskatoon teams as foreign invaders joining a morally superior group of teams in a league, and instead think of all ~20 as having equal claim to the league.
On point 2: this is my observations. Discussions I've had with parents also share the same opinion, fair is not equal. You may be overlooking a component, COMMUNICATION. Coaches who effectively communicate to parents up front and honestly are more inclined to gain approval and understanding on ice time. Coaches attempting to reign supreme with an agenda should never be allowed to coach. My experience is that when the latter occurs, associations do not do the right thing by not selecting that individual to coach the following season.
I'm not suggesting that "fair is equal", what I'm suggesting is that we should forget about the concepts of "fair" and "equal" all together and instead prioritize player development. This means we have to dig deeper into the concept of player development and create standards around ice time distribution that are most likely to lead to the most development for the greatest amount of kids. At that point, if we think the evidence shows that playing some kids 40-50 minutes a game is the best way to develop all players, we should do that. Hint: the evidence suggests the opposite.
I hate to make a correlation between a pro athlete and kids but why is it that a pro football player spends seasons on a practice roster. Why is it they never quit?
I'm not suggesting "desire" isn't a part of it, but the primary reason is that it's a job. They get paid. Which is the opposite scenario for players in minor hockey in Saskatchewan - their families pay so they CAN play.
A "sliver" of life.... Hockey is a major part of an elite kids life. Mentally, physically and socially. Imagine a corporate world where extra effort and strong work ethic are not rewarded in some fashion. Where the work of one or a few never get recognized. Sport has the ability to expose a kid to a small sampling of the way life is. A great coach develops his/her team in practice and instills the value of an honest days pay. If he does that, fair play is never an issue.
I agree completely that hockey is a significant part of life for elite players. It's also a pretty small component when you think of all of the other things the kid encounters outside of hockey and all they'll encounter as they grow up. With all of the other things that will teach them that "life isn't fair", why should we go out of our way to teach them that lesson through hockey too, especially when we can exercise a fair amount of control over whether or not that's the case?
I'm not advocating fair play in the sense that a coach's discretion be taken completely out of the equation. In fact, I think that's the last thing we should do. But there are some pretty reasonable guidelines that could be developed that would still give coaches
very significant discretion, and still make sure everyone can play and develop.
Think about it this way. In bantam hockey, teams have 3 lines. In the NHL, teams have 4 lines. If you focused for a second on the ice time distribution between lines 1 and 3 in the NHL (ignoring the 4th line), you'd see a distribution that's actually way
more equal than the way certain bantam teams distribute ice time amongst their 3 lines. You'd see line matching taking place, and you'd see different scenarios where certain players play and others do not, but you'd
never see a #1 centre or a #1 d-man play for 50 minutes of a regular 60 minute game. Ever.