What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

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

I haven't seen many 2022 high school graduation players announcing their commitments. June 15th marked the opening of their ability to speak directly with college coaches and to receive offers after 1.5 years of not any contact. I thought there would be a flood of announcements right on June 15, 2020.

Are the colleges not making offers because of the great Covid-19 unknown?
 
Antibody tests are so inaccurate as to be pointless. So many 'false positive' results that getting a positive result tells you essentially nothing.

Antibody tests are inaccurate, many of the doctors in my area don't trust them and don't have them performed. Even the diagnostic swab tests are inaccurate. I know specifically of a lab technician that submitted unused swabs for testing and they came back positive. They were getting an unusual amount of positive tests so submitted these to see what came back. I am of the opinion (yes, it is just my opinion) that we move along. Regardless of what we do there is going to be a second wave. Delaying the inevitable isn't going to solve anything. For those that are concerned about it, take the precautions you feel are necessary. Businesses take the precautions they feel are necessary. Let people get on with living as they see fit. It is a free country after all, right? In the immortal words of Ty Webb, "Oh, Danny, this isn't Russia. Is this Russia? This isn't Russia, is it? I didn't think so." Still curious to see what decisions these schools/conferences will make. I'm hoping there is a season, for personal reasons and, for those athletes that have worked so hard to get to this point in life. Take care all!
 
Positive tests on unused swabs - is that surprising? At least not to me.

Saying you are verbally committed and actually getting to sign in early Nov are two very different things and anyone that does not think there is a difference is kidding themselves.

UNC and Ohio State has their players bubbled and let's let them out of the bubble for the Fourth of July weekend. How dumb was that. They won't be the only ones pausing.
Something to do with the workouts are voluntary.

The million dollar basketball challenge is playing - it's amazing when you love the game and or the chance to win money the excuses not to play go away.

The same with Women's pro soccer who is also playing without complaining and you would think they would be complaining based on the news articles about individual players.

It's July 9 and USA hockey has been silent about all youth hockey and that is concerning.
 
I haven't seen many 2022 high school graduation players announcing their commitments. June 15th marked the opening of their ability to speak directly with college coaches and to receive offers after 1.5 years of not any contact. I thought there would be a flood of announcements right on June 15, 2020.

Are the colleges not making offers because of the great Covid-19 unknown?

There have been a few announcements but most of the conversations were introductory & expressing interest and “come to campus and let’s talk in person when the dead period is over”
Many coaches and assistants are on travel bans or even furloughed. Most of the 2022’s haven’t been watched in games since Jan or Feb. The new important date is Sep 1, the end of the dead period.
 
I think these schools are pretty cowardly. They always say follow the science yet when the American Association of Pediatrics and the FDA strongly says kids should go to school, that science is ignored. And there is no significant risk difference between a 16-17 year old who would be in high school and an 18-19 year old in college so don't try to make that distinction.

The other argument will be that these old fossil professors will be at risk. Well, they aren't playing sports or going to the games. Stay home. They should be teaching. If my dental hygienist can clean teeth with a mask and shield on two inches from my face, a professor can wear the same 10 feet from any student. If masks don't work, why are we forced to wear them?

We've gone from flatten the curve (which happened) to lower the death count (which happened) to now, "there are terrible long term possible effects" so we all need to stay indoors and wear masks for the next two years. These student athletes have virtually no risk and if someone would actually test them, most of them have the antibodies already. Its very frustrating to say the least.



Rightnut, genuinely not trying to start anything so honest question, have you ever served in any sort of sports administrative leadership position where you had the absolute final say in a legitimate player health or safety question?
 
Rightnut, genuinely not trying to start anything so honest question, have you ever served in any sort of sports administrative leadership position where you had the absolute final say in a legitimate player health or safety question?

Nope. Are you implying that having had a "sports administration position where one had absolute final say in a legitimate player health or safety question" is a condition precedent to having an opinion on the issue? Probably there is no one that fits that requirement as it was the school presidents that decided, not sports admins.
 
Antibody tests are inaccurate, many of the doctors in my area don't trust them and don't have them performed. Even the diagnostic swab tests are inaccurate. I know specifically of a lab technician that submitted unused swabs for testing and they came back positive. They were getting an unusual amount of positive tests so submitted these to see what came back. I am of the opinion (yes, it is just my opinion) that we move along. Regardless of what we do there is going to be a second wave. Delaying the inevitable isn't going to solve anything. For those that are concerned about it, take the precautions you feel are necessary. Businesses take the precautions they feel are necessary. Let people get on with living as they see fit. It is a free country after all, right? In the immortal words of Ty Webb, "Oh, Danny, this isn't Russia. Is this Russia? This isn't Russia, is it? I didn't think so." Still curious to see what decisions these schools/conferences will make. I'm hoping there is a season, for personal reasons and, for those athletes that have worked so hard to get to this point in life. Take care all!



To Reddington, not sure why you feel USA Hockey has been silent but, that certainly is not the case. They have been very forthcoming regarding return to participation guidelines, as well as some video announcements regarding coaching and officiating certification in the present situation. Have they addressed the upcoming season in regards to actual game play? No. But, considering all of the unknowns out there, it's still early, especially considering there's new Covid info coming out on a daily basis, along with the fact we're now experiencing 60,000 new cases per day and climbing, as well as a significant increase in hospitalizations and even deaths are now rising again.

To "Rightnut", no, I don't think it's a requirement to have served in that type of position to have an opinion. Again, not trying to be confrontational but, there is a difference between an opinion and an informed opinion. ;) And yes, at the collegiate level, ADs aren't making the final decision on playing or not. You're correct that falls on school presidents or boards of governors. However, it's the directors/presidents/boards of directors at the youth level who will make those decisions there and, the vast majority of those are volunteers who certainly aren't willing to risk their personal liability.

In the last three days, every legitimate expert I've read online or seen interviewed on TV is now saying that since the number of cases is rising as fast as it is, contact tracing is pretty much meaningless and the only way we can get things under control in the really bad areas is to go back into shut down mode for another solid 3-6 weeks. Obviously, no one wants to do that but, I won't be surprised to see a few states do it.

Also, in the last few days, over 200 experts from around the world have recently written to ask the WHO to adjust there guidance due to the fact that the evidence now indicates the virus is able to be aerosolized. Meaning, it can be infectious in droplets that are small enough to hang in the air in an indoor situation for up to 2 or 3 hours or longer, along with the fact that someone sneezing or coughing can propel those smaller droplets up to 20 ft away. This increases the importance of using masks indoors in group situations. Here's a link to an article from June 26th discussing it in more detail;

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6498/1422

For those that aren't interested in reading it, here's the first paragraph. Hopefully, this gets a few who might not normally read it to do so:

"Respiratory infections occur through the transmission of virus-containing droplets (>5 to 10 µm) and aerosols (≤5 µm) exhaled from infected individuals during breathing, speaking, coughing, and sneezing. Traditional respiratory disease control measures are designed to reduce transmission by droplets produced in the sneezes and coughs of infected individuals. However, a large proportion of the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) appears to be occurring through airborne transmission of aerosols produced by asymptomatic individuals during breathing and speaking (13). Aerosols can accumulate, remain infectious in indoor air for hours, and be easily inhaled deep into the lungs. For society to resume, measures designed to reduce aerosol transmission must be implemented, including universal masking and regular, widespread testing to identify and isolate infected asymptomatic individuals."

This is a potential game changer in regards to the potential risk of transmission that administrators will now have to consider in their decision making process. There was a weekend hockey camp held in the small northern Wisconsin town of Ashland on June 26-28 and 13 people have already tested positive, with 11 more waiting for results. Here's a link to an article regarding the situation:

https://kbjr6.com/2020/07/06/confirm...ey-tournament/

Yes, Wisconsin is literally the Wild Wild West of Covid and I highly doubt anyone was wearing masks. There were people from Minnesota and Michigan that are now infected and there were individuals that are infected in youth baseball leagues in both Duluth, MN and Marquette, MI. and now those leagues are shut down for at least a week. Yet, this is a stark example of what could happen if hockey or any other indoor team sports are played. And, for sure it speaks to the challenges of allowing any spectators into the buildings even if we do play games.

Yes, the vast, vast majority of young people are not going to experience significant symptoms if infected. Still, the current outbreaks in the south are seeing a significant infection trend towards people in their 20s and 30s and, the average age of death is falling sharply. With overall deaths per day beginning to rise again. No surprise really as deaths lag behind infections by 4-6 weeks. So, there's a good chance we will continue to see that daily number climb again.

As someone who has served in some type of youth and adult sports administrative leadership position for 25 years, I can assure you that those responsible for having their name go on the dotted line in regards to the final decision about return to play, are always going to err on the side of abundant caution as there will be significant legal liability for those individuals or groups. I've been fortunate to be closely affiliated with a men's Div. I conference for over 25 years and, the leadership has no idea if there will be a season at this point. To the point that "Rightnut" made about older college professors who might fear getting Covid from their younger students and that they should just "stay home"; just a friendly reminder that many of the coaches and officials at every level of the game are 50 and over. And at the collegiate level, the average age of officials is in the low to mid 40s. If the older officials who are at elevated risk "just stay home" home as "Rightnut" suggests the profs do, you won't be playing any games anyway. :)

The above concerns don't even address the challenges that occur if we do play and a player or coach tests positive during the season. Both CDC and most state health department guidelines require both those who tested positive and those who meet the CDC definition of close contact with that person, quarantine for 14 days. And, if administrators are really following those guidelines properly, if a player tests positive the following week after a series, the team they played the previous weekend -- players, coaches, and staff -- should also be quarantining for 14 days as well. So, how do we maintain any kind of scheduling integrity? And, at the collegiate level, that starts affecting programs financially. Especially at the Div. I level where teams still fly to cities for games. Heck even if they're busing to a series there will be significant extra costs for late cancellations regarding flights, coach buses, and hotels. I truly hate to be a Debbie downer but, there truly are significant potential health, cost, and organizational challenges in trying to operate in the current situation.
 
The Big Ten conference has announced their plans for Fall sports: https://bigten.org/news/2020/7/9/big...ll-season.aspx

A couple of clips:

"...if the Conference is able to participate in fall sports (men’s and women’s cross country, field hockey, football, men’s and women’s soccer, and women’s volleyball) based on medical advice, it will move to Conference-only schedules in those sports. Details for these sports will be released at a later date, while decisions on sports not listed above will continue to be evaluated."

"...Big Ten student-athletes who choose not to participate in intercollegiate athletics at any time during the summer and/or the 2020-21 academic year due to concerns about COVID-19 will continue to have their scholarship honored by their institution and will remain in good standing with their team."
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top