If No Hockey then......an intelligent discussion on scenarios.

[Leather helmet]

Stanford just permanently eliminated 11 sports (including rowing, which puts a dagger into the hopes of future Hollywood celebrities trying to find a way to get their Instagram-influencer children into college, but I digress), so I am certain we haven't seen what the world of college athletics is going to look like. If football doesn't return to campuses this year, as I am willing to bet it won't, I am pretty sure that more non-revenue-producing sports will be cut.

I fear for the actual survival of many colleges, much less those colleges' athletics departments. If your house is on fire, you have to put out the fire before you can start to paint the house.

[net presence]

Net presence

You clearly were itching for a chance to say your piece. That’s fine with me. Civil discussion is apparently becoming a lost art. it’s great you have had some connection to some program for many years. And I agree that administrators are risk averse. To a fault. Your argument is that until there is no risk there can be no games. I don’t agree. There is always risk. In hockey risk is inherent in the sport and a risk for the participants, the refs and coaches in many different aspects. Those who don’t want to accept the risk can opt out. That’s their decision. It should be an individual decision. I can virtually guarantee the majority would take the risk. If it’s your (or the Admins) liability you are worried about, have the participants sign a waiver. Let the participants decide.

Not "itching" at all. I usually stay over on the men's forums but, happened to check in and saw the thread title and wanted to see what others were saying. To be clear, are you saying I wasn't civil in my discourse? If not, I sincerely apologize as that certainly wasn't my intent. Also, I'm not close to a single program but to an entire league. It's an important distinction as the leaders of the league are obviously far more directly involved in the national discussions about returning to play than those of any single program. You say that administrators are risk adverse to a fault. I agree there is some truth to that. However, let's remember we're literally dealing with something for the first time in 100 years and, society has obviously changed dramatically since then. So, ultimately they have the final say and you're simply going to have to accept that they'll approach these decisions in an extremely cautious manner.

And no, my argument is not that there can't be zero risk. This isn't a black and white issue. In fact, it's extremely nuanced in the way the people in the leadership positions have to decide what the right path is. Of course hockey is a sport with inherent risk. However, administrators and other leaders have gone to great lengths to limit that risk to the greatest degree possible. You know how they accomplished that? They followed the science behind what various doctors and equipment manufacturers were telling the committees responsible for making those final decisions on improving safety/reducing risk. So, all they're going to do is follow the best science again. Now, if you don't agree with the science, I'm not sure what to tell you.

Again, if you force the coaches and officials that are at provably greater risk to simply opt out, I'm telling you there will not be a season. Mainly because there won't be enough officials. Remember also that, for many of the coaches, this is their livelihood. If they voluntarily opt out, I doubt their schools are going to be willing to pay them. Seems pretty harsh to force them into that. As for your idea to have the players sign a waiver, I promise you those don't always hold up in court. More importantly, this isn't about the players as much as it's about their coaches, the training and equipment staff, the athletic department staff and other team's coaches, as well as the parents and grandparents of the players and anyone of those others I just mentioned. Everyone acknowledges that they are at very limited risk for significantly negative outcomes. I guess the question you need to be prepared to answer is, what is the specific number of provably unnecessary and preventable deaths that's worth it play college sports? Because like it or not, that in essence is the base level calculation. Not sure why that's so difficult to understand.

Finally, is there a reason you chose not to address the example of significant spread at the hockey camp, or the fact that we now believe the virus is aerosolized therefore significantly increasing the risk of infection in indoor settings, or the scenarios regarding potential scheduling issues when whole teams have to sit for two weeks? Remember, these aren't professionals and the universities are going to follow the CDC and state health department guidelines. I'm genuinely interested to hear your thoughts on these items.

[net presence]

That's one long post ... Interesting comment on USA Hockey - what do I want them do - stand behind their insurance that they have collected from everyone. Have everyone sign a covid release if they think that it's not clear that it covers just catastrophic injury.

As far as I understand, that's their plan -- to have parents sign a waiver. However, as I just stated to "Rightnut", those don't always hold up in court.

[Rightnut]

Not "itching" at all. I usually stay over on the men's forums but, happened to check in and saw the thread title and wanted to see what others were saying. To be clear, are you saying I wasn't civil in my discourse? If not, I sincerely apologize as that certainly wasn't my intent. Also, I'm not close to a single program but to an entire league. It's an important distinction as the leaders of the league are obviously far more directly involved in the national discussions about returning to play than those of any single program. You say that administrators are risk adverse to a fault. I agree there is some truth to that. However, let's remember we're literally dealing with something for the first time in 100 years and, society has obviously changed dramatically since then. So, ultimately they have the final say and you're simply going to have to accept that they'll approach these decisions in an extremely cautious manner.

And no, my argument is not that there can't be zero risk. This isn't a black and white issue. In fact, it's extremely nuanced in the way the people in the leadership positions have to decide what the right path is. Of course hockey is a sport with inherent risk. However, administrators and other leaders have gone to great lengths to limit that risk to the greatest degree possible. You know how they accomplished that? They followed the science behind what various doctors and equipment manufacturers were telling the committees responsible for making those final decisions on improving safety/reducing risk. So, all they're going to do is follow the best science again. Now, if you don't agree with the science, I'm not sure what to tell you.

Again, if you force the coaches and officials that are at provably greater risk to simply opt out, I'm telling you there will not be a season. Mainly because there won't be enough officials. Remember also that, for many of the coaches, this is their livelihood. If they voluntarily opt out, I doubt their schools are going to be willing to pay them. Seems pretty harsh to force them into that. As for your idea to have the players sign a waiver, I promise you those don't always hold up in court. More importantly, this isn't about the players as much as it's about their coaches, the training and equipment staff, the athletic department staff and other team's coaches, as well as the parents and grandparents of the players and anyone of those others I just mentioned. Everyone acknowledges that they are at very limited risk for significantly negative outcomes. I guess the question you need to be prepared to answer is, what is the specific number of provably unnecessary and preventable deaths that's worth it play college sports? Because like it or not, that in essence is the base level calculation. Not sure why that's so difficult to understand.

Finally, is there a reason you chose not to address the example of significant spread at the hockey camp, or the fact that we now believe the virus is aerosolized therefore significantly increasing the risk of infection in indoor settings, or the scenarios regarding potential scheduling issues when whole teams have to sit for two weeks? Remember, these aren't professionals and the universities are going to follow the CDC and state health department guidelines. I'm genuinely interested to hear your thoughts on these items.

I was definitely not saying you were not civil in your discourse. You certainly have been and it is appreciated. i was trying to point out that I feel we are losing some of that ability these days as a society.

I have heard that "follow the science" argument invoked when it fits in with certain groups' agendas. The American Association of Pediatric Doctors says go back to school in person. Why is that science ignored? It doesn't fit the agenda. Many schools are going back with all students and planning on sports. Are you saying that they are negligent and the Ivy plan is superior? Criminally negligent? Why does Harvard allow 40% and Yale 60% of students back? Under your argument, no students should be allowed back. It puts their parents and grandparents at risk along with all the staff at the school they interact with. Cornell says all students should come back. Which Ivy league school is smarter? Cornell actually used science according to them. What a concept.

Parents/grandparents etc can make their own decisions. They can watch games on TV anyway. The participants can (and would be) tested regularly and can certainly quarantine before going to see their parents/grandparents or anyone at a high risk. Again - you are now saying that everyone has to be perfectly safe before we can have college sports. I respectfully disagree.

With regard to coaches losing their jobs by opting out - that does raise a question about which I have not seen anything. Are the Ivies and any school cancelling sports, paying all of their coaches, staff, equipment people etc., when they are not playing? Should be very interesting to see how that shakes out. Certainly appears that this is giving cover to some schools like Stanford and Dartmouth to cut sports.

With regard to your last paragraph. No reason. The fact that the virus is aerosolized is not a new fact. It always has been. That is why there are masks. Of course you can have an outbreak in a hockey camp or an old age home or anywhere. I don't see that as relevant. Whole teams don't need to sit for two weeks. The players can be tested. Pro sports are doing it. I can tell you for a fact that many players had it in the spring and it went through the teams then, so they have some level of immunity. Its not going to tear through teams.

We clearly don't see eye to eye on this but I do appreciate the civil debate and think we need more these days versus yelling and cancel culture.

[Rightnut]

ECAC announced a continuance of the schedule. Nothing concrete in the announcement but teams have been told that there is no hockey til 2021 (hopefully January).

[vicb]

Another interesting aspect in all of this is for the visiting teams. How do you protect the visiting team when they have to stay overnight in a hotel. What is the level of disinfecting that the hotel does and testing of its staff? What happens if a maid or maids test Covid positive a day or two before a team is supposed to arrive? Is the hotel on lockdown (no people allowed to stay)? You could probably scramble to find other accommodations in Boston, Minneapolis or Madison. Good luck in getting anything in Potsdam.

[Rightnut]

Another interesting aspect in all of this is for the visiting teams. How do you protect the visiting team when they have to stay overnight in a hotel. What is the level of disinfecting that the hotel does and testing of its staff? What happens if a maid or maids test Covid positive a day or two before a team is supposed to arrive? Is the hotel on lockdown (no people allowed to stay)? You could probably scramble to find other accommodations in Boston, Minneapolis or Madison. Good luck in getting anything in Potsdam.

There was talk in the Patriot league for football that there would be no overnight stays - probably for that reason. Would be hard to get all the games in if they tried that in hockey.

What about the National Championship if some leagues move forward in October and the ECAC and maybe others don't?

[robertearle]

You could probably scramble to find other accommodations in Boston, Minneapolis or Madison. Good luck in getting anything in Potsdam.

At present, Dane County (Madison) has a ban on indoor gatherings of more than ten people. Some web sites refer to "private gatherings", so there may be some wiggle room in the definitions. But as that applies to hockey: forget games, I don't think a team can practice. At least not all together at the same time.

[Cornholio]

The beginning of the cancellation of the season is at hand. We are in the middle of the "no college sports" spiral right now. B1G announces a 'conference only' fall sports (including football) format, which will be followed with a "no fall sports" announcement in all likelihood in the next month. Their rationale for 'conference only' does not make much sense and I think it is just the so-called leaders not able to come to terms with the loss of a football season. If the decision makers have deemed the virus risk is that high that it is 'unsafe', I don't think you can thread a needle here and say "it is unsafe for Wisconsin to play Note Dame but is safe for Wisconsin to play Maryland" simply because "protocols" will be slightly different. With women's hockey only a month or so behind football season, I can't see the season being saved.

[Reddington]

Henceforth, the topic. Now the Pediatrician Group has flip flopped. The gong show is about to begin. Meanwhile the Basketball tournament going on now is not getting any negative press. The media picks on who suits them.

[Rightnut]

I think the Teachers Unions exerted maximum pressure on the pediatricians- hence the joint statement.

[Reddington]

The States are starting to ban each other which will surely kill a season. And now if you come from certain states to goto college, you may have to quarantine for 14 days even if you don't play sports. I also read about a school that has instituted a snitch line on gatherings of more than 15 people. Just crazy times.

[robertearle]

The States are starting to ban each other which will surely kill a season. And now if you come from certain states to goto college, you may have to quarantine for 14 days even if you don't play sports. I also read about a school that has instituted a snitch line on gatherings of more than 15 people. Just crazy times.

It is my understanding that quarantine traveling from state to state is waived if the person traveling can present documentation of a recent negative COVID RNA test. (Other than possible delays in getting test results) this shouldn't be a problem for teams that presumably will be getting tested regularly. Lord knows, there are plenty of other issues, but this shouldn't be much of one.