Minnesota Hockey Taking Over?

The Latest 400 or so Topics

Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)

Wet Paint
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:23 pm

Re: Minnesota Hockey Taking Over?

Post by Wet Paint » Thu Aug 20, 2020 2:48 pm

Section 8 guy wrote:
Wed Aug 19, 2020 10:55 pm
One question around the third liners are all going to go be stars with their buddies playing junior gold now and the coaches are going to lose them. If that was such a great option.......what would have been stopping that same kid from doing that last year or the year before?
Look at what I said. I did not say he was gonna turn into a super star. I said he was gonna get 55 games with his buddies and get to play as opposed to sitting on the end of the bench as a 3rd liner who is cannon fodder. Right now there are not very many out of the cities jgold teams for a kid to go to. If MNHockey takes over and adds a midget team to their association there will be lots and lots of them. Those are the teams these kids will go play for when offered the option to sit for 16 games or play for 55. It is a great option. The coaches will lose them because the average kid knows he is not gonna go pro. He wants to play hockey and have a ball. 55 games v 16 games. Playing vs cannon fodder. You make the call.

WestMetro
Posts: 3094
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 4:08 pm

Re: Minnesota Hockey Taking Over?

Post by WestMetro » Thu Aug 20, 2020 2:49 pm

I guess Ill throw out some more questions, apologize if answers have already been covered.


1. For those that lean towards cancel or delay or shorten the HS season, what would be the benchmark for
reconsideration? 300 new statewide cases per day instead of 600 presently? 150? Two weeks without any youth
sports outbreaks? One month after school year reopens with no major outbreaks? A 1% or less infection rate resulting
from all school and youth sports? I mean, you cant just say things are bad bad bad, without having a point for
reevaluation.

2. If MSHSL is contemplating cutting the # games in half , what it the logic? One game per week instead of two?
Two games per week but done in 6 weeks instead of 12? What evidence is there that those cuts would slow the spread?
The current youth leagues and tournaments are not following those kind of limitations.

3. If there is as much medical risk for HS hockey as MSHSL might be thinking, then why arent Gov and Minn Dept of Health reclosing the rinks and shutting down current youth leagues and tournaments?

4. There is good logic to whoever said if all or most learning goes on line, then why would MSHSL and school boards sponsor in person hockey? In that case, should MSHSL just surrender the season to Minnesota Hockey and let them decide in conjunction with Governor and Minn Dept of Health guidelines? Should the School Boards similarly surrender all youth sports completely to be consistent? That would ignore all the learning benefits that athletics and teamwork provide.

5. I think its almost forgone conclusion the $3 million MHSHL state tournament profit is not going to happen no matter what. I mean thats only 6-7 months away. Do we really think things will be so much better by then that 100,000 + are going to want or be able to walk thru the door at the X? 18,000 per game? No way. So even if they let in a few thousand, the gate receipts and food/drink will be way way down. TV revenue might be the same, but doubtful that be enough to make things profitable?

InThePipes
Posts: 632
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:26 pm

Re: Minnesota Hockey Taking Over?

Post by InThePipes » Thu Aug 20, 2020 2:59 pm

Schotzy wrote:
Thu Aug 20, 2020 2:47 pm
elliott70 wrote:
Thu Aug 20, 2020 1:55 pm
Eagles93 wrote:
Thu Aug 20, 2020 11:59 am


You don't think MN Hockey/USA Hockey are money making organizations?
And what makes you think MH is a money making organization?
It's the associations that make most of the $$$. USA Hockey and MN Hockey get a small registration fee, like around $10.00 per player and USA Hockey gets the same. At least from my recollection. Sure they make some money off their tournaments, but so does MSHSL.
Associations are non-profits and they aren't giving board members holiday bonus checks.

Hunters1993
Posts: 408
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:22 am

Re: Minnesota Hockey Taking Over?

Post by Hunters1993 » Thu Aug 20, 2020 3:01 pm

Will see what happens in next month when school starts up for High School. Will it become online learning by October? Or will everyone take a careful look at what they are and are not doing? Everyone keeps up the masks wearing and we might even get to Christmas before we end up online learning.

If everyone goes back to life as normal and does everything that they were doing in February as if nothing happens, yes I’m talking to hockey dads, then we will be online by end of September or before. Guaranteed!

Look at University of Minnesota, many high schools are starting hybrid.
#KEEPTHEKIDSINTHECLASSROOM

Hunters1993
Posts: 408
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:22 am

Re: Minnesota Hockey Taking Over?

Post by Hunters1993 » Thu Aug 20, 2020 3:07 pm

Posted by others!

How do you respond to the very real concerns that by allowing youth/high school athletics, especially team contact sports, we significantly increase the risk of secondary transmission to both the athletes' classmates and, more importantly, parents, coaches, officials, and teachers who are often older than 50 and have a much likely higher risks of pre-existing comorbidities?


DITTO on the Points! Waiting for answers from our hockey dads.
#KEEPTHEKIDSINTHECLASSROOM

Schotzy
Posts: 276
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 10:36 am

Re: Minnesota Hockey Taking Over?

Post by Schotzy » Thu Aug 20, 2020 3:13 pm

InThePipes wrote:
Thu Aug 20, 2020 2:59 pm
Schotzy wrote:
Thu Aug 20, 2020 2:47 pm
elliott70 wrote:
Thu Aug 20, 2020 1:55 pm


And what makes you think MH is a money making organization?
It's the associations that make most of the $$$. USA Hockey and MN Hockey get a small registration fee, like around $10.00 per player and USA Hockey gets the same. At least from my recollection. Sure they make some money off their tournaments, but so does MSHSL.
Associations are non-profits and they aren't giving board members holiday bonus checks.
Oh, I agree! I was the treasurer of my association. I just know that the associations take in the most money when it comes to registration and hosted tournaments. All it does is cover the costs, which is about all of association based youth hockey, including MN Hockey and USA Hockey.

Schotzy
Posts: 276
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 10:36 am

Re: Minnesota Hockey Taking Over?

Post by Schotzy » Thu Aug 20, 2020 3:15 pm

Hunters1993 wrote:
Thu Aug 20, 2020 3:07 pm
Posted by others!

How do you respond to the very real concerns that by allowing youth/high school athletics, especially team contact sports, we significantly increase the risk of secondary transmission to both the athletes' classmates and, more importantly, parents, coaches, officials, and teachers who are often older than 50 and have a much likely higher risks of pre-existing comorbidities?


DITTO on the Points! Waiting for answers from our hockey dads.
I said my peace, I am just going to ignore your posts moving forward. Just like anti-maskers, you are single-minded, unwilling to hear other's views.

InThePipes
Posts: 632
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:26 pm

Re: Minnesota Hockey Taking Over?

Post by InThePipes » Thu Aug 20, 2020 3:30 pm

WestMetro wrote:
Thu Aug 20, 2020 2:49 pm
I guess Ill throw out some more questions, apologize if answers have already been covered.


1. For those that lean towards cancel or delay or shorten the HS season, what would be the benchmark for
reconsideration? 300 new statewide cases per day instead of 600 presently? 150? Two weeks without any youth
sports outbreaks? One month after school year reopens with no major outbreaks? A 1% or less infection rate resulting
from all school and youth sports? I mean, you cant just say things are bad bad bad, without having a point for
reevaluation.

2. If MSHSL is contemplating cutting the # games in half , what it the logic? One game per week instead of two?
Two games per week but done in 6 weeks instead of 12? What evidence is there that those cuts would slow the spread?
The current youth leagues and tournaments are not following those kind of limitations.

3. If there is as much medical risk for HS hockey as MSHSL might be thinking, then why arent Gov and Minn Dept of Health reclosing the rinks and shutting down current youth leagues and tournaments?

4. There is good logic to whoever said if all or most learning goes on line, then why would MSHSL and school boards sponsor in person hockey? In that case, should MSHSL just surrender the season to Minnesota Hockey and let them decide in conjunction with Governor and Minn Dept of Health guidelines? Should the School Boards similarly surrender all youth sports completely to be consistent? That would ignore all the learning benefits that athletics and teamwork provide.

5. I think its almost forgone conclusion the $3 million MHSHL state tournament profit is not going to happen no matter what. I mean thats only 6-7 months away. Do we really think things will be so much better by then that 100,000 + are going to want or be able to walk thru the door at the X? 18,000 per game? No way. So even if they let in a few thousand, the gate receipts and food/drink will be way way down. TV revenue might be the same, but doubtful that be enough to make things profitable?
I'll provide my OPINION:

1) Agree, hockey is on-going everywhere and has been for more than 2 months (STP, AAA, Tier 1, BEL, MASH, Junior camps, summer camps) with a few minor outbreaks for teams/facilities. I'd question the logic behind the proposal to reduce the ability of HS aged players to participate in hockey this winter by limiting the season length or games (which is already far shorter than youth seasons in MN and everywhere else in the country).

2) I don't understand the logic, I'm highly skeptical that playing half the games reduces the disease transmission by 50%. Of course, there is no way to know this with certainty and let's not even get into the modeling the U of M conducted back in April and May that the state has based it's early policy decisions on.

3) I would suggest the risk is acceptably low based on the experience in the first couple of months, there is never no risk (in anything you do). I also appreciate each family/individual is different and there are many families that may feel the risk is still too high based on a multitude of considerations, I can certainly respect that.

4) I think the major difference is Minnesota Hockey. There probably isn't a corresponding organization sitting in the background in football or other sports. This allows the opportunity for MSHSL to opt out if they feel the risk is too high and allow all families to make the choice if they want to participate or not under the USA Hockey/MN Hockey umbrella. If you want to participate here is your avenue, if you feel the risk is too high for your family that's understandable.

5. Agree, I would suspect MSHSL will base their decision on the risk, probably not the revenue loss, at least that's what they'll state publicly. No doubt that revenue loss is going to be substantial this year, but playing a partial year does very little or nothing regardless of if they play no season or a partial season.

Schotzy
Posts: 276
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 10:36 am

Re: Minnesota Hockey Taking Over?

Post by Schotzy » Thu Aug 20, 2020 3:34 pm

InThePipes wrote:
Thu Aug 20, 2020 3:30 pm
WestMetro wrote:
Thu Aug 20, 2020 2:49 pm
I guess Ill throw out some more questions, apologize if answers have already been covered.


1. For those that lean towards cancel or delay or shorten the HS season, what would be the benchmark for
reconsideration? 300 new statewide cases per day instead of 600 presently? 150? Two weeks without any youth
sports outbreaks? One month after school year reopens with no major outbreaks? A 1% or less infection rate resulting
from all school and youth sports? I mean, you cant just say things are bad bad bad, without having a point for
reevaluation.

2. If MSHSL is contemplating cutting the # games in half , what it the logic? One game per week instead of two?
Two games per week but done in 6 weeks instead of 12? What evidence is there that those cuts would slow the spread?
The current youth leagues and tournaments are not following those kind of limitations.

3. If there is as much medical risk for HS hockey as MSHSL might be thinking, then why arent Gov and Minn Dept of Health reclosing the rinks and shutting down current youth leagues and tournaments?

4. There is good logic to whoever said if all or most learning goes on line, then why would MSHSL and school boards sponsor in person hockey? In that case, should MSHSL just surrender the season to Minnesota Hockey and let them decide in conjunction with Governor and Minn Dept of Health guidelines? Should the School Boards similarly surrender all youth sports completely to be consistent? That would ignore all the learning benefits that athletics and teamwork provide.

5. I think its almost forgone conclusion the $3 million MHSHL state tournament profit is not going to happen no matter what. I mean thats only 6-7 months away. Do we really think things will be so much better by then that 100,000 + are going to want or be able to walk thru the door at the X? 18,000 per game? No way. So even if they let in a few thousand, the gate receipts and food/drink will be way way down. TV revenue might be the same, but doubtful that be enough to make things profitable?
I'll provide my OPINION:

1) Agree, hockey is on-going everywhere and has been for more than 2 months (STP, AAA, Tier 1, BEL, MASH, Junior camps, summer camps) with a few minor outbreaks for teams/facilities. I'd question the logic behind the proposal to reduce the ability of HS aged players to participate in hockey this winter by limiting the season length or games (which is already far shorter than youth seasons in MN and everywhere else in the country).

2) I don't understand the logic, I'm highly skeptical that playing half the games reduces the disease transmission by 50%. Of course, there is no way to know this with certainty and let's not even get into the modeling the U of M conducted back in April and May that the state has based it's early policy decisions on.

3) I would suggest the risk is acceptably low based on the experience in the first couple of months, there is never no risk (in anything you do). I also appreciate each family/individual is different and there are many families that may feel the risk is still too high based on a multitude of considerations, I can certainly respect that.

4) I think the major difference is Minnesota Hockey. There probably isn't a corresponding organization sitting in the background in football or other sports. This allows the opportunity for MSHSL to opt out if they feel the risk is too high and allow all families to make the choice if they want to participate or not under the USA Hockey/MN Hockey umbrella. If you want to participate here is your avenue, if you feel the risk is too high for your family that's understandable.

5. Agree, I would suspect MSHSL will base their decision on the risk, probably not the revenue loss, at least that's what they'll state publicly. No doubt that revenue loss is going to be substantial this year, but playing a partial year does very little or nothing regardless of if they play no season or a partial season.
How dare you use a reasoned response. :wink: I agree on all points.

WestMetro
Posts: 3094
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 4:08 pm

Re: Minnesota Hockey Taking Over?

Post by WestMetro » Thu Aug 20, 2020 4:13 pm

Well stated Pipes

Hunters93 , I respect your opinion where different and no doubt many agree with your points

blueblood
Posts: 2572
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 8:36 am

Re: Minnesota Hockey Taking Over?

Post by blueblood » Thu Aug 20, 2020 4:49 pm

Is Hunters1993 = Sat81? Inquiring minds want to know... :-k
Play Like a Champion Today

east hockey
Site Admin
Posts: 6976
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2002 8:33 pm
Location: Proctor, MN
Contact:

Re: Minnesota Hockey Taking Over?

Post by east hockey » Thu Aug 20, 2020 6:28 pm

blueblood wrote:
Thu Aug 20, 2020 4:49 pm
Is Hunters1993 = Sat81? Inquiring minds want to know... :-k
Nope.

Lee
Message Board arsonist since 2005
Egomaniac since 2006

blueblood
Posts: 2572
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 8:36 am

Re: Minnesota Hockey Taking Over?

Post by blueblood » Thu Aug 20, 2020 6:57 pm

Thanks Lee. =D> Maybe it's his alter ego then?
Play Like a Champion Today

east hockey
Site Admin
Posts: 6976
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2002 8:33 pm
Location: Proctor, MN
Contact:

Re: Minnesota Hockey Taking Over?

Post by east hockey » Thu Aug 20, 2020 7:01 pm

blueblood wrote:
Thu Aug 20, 2020 6:57 pm
Thanks Lee. =D> Maybe it's his alter ego then?
Nah. Sats could never learn to troll that badly :mrgreen:

Lee
Message Board arsonist since 2005
Egomaniac since 2006

HockeyCrazy1970
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2018 1:55 pm

Re: Minnesota Hockey Taking Over?

Post by HockeyCrazy1970 » Thu Aug 20, 2020 10:04 pm

I am now heading into week 6 for my beer league play and almost everything is the same as February. We go in the building with a mask on. Most guys take them off in the locker room. We play the game just like before, guys on the same bench breathing hard, etc. We don't shake hands afterwards... They want us out of the locker room faster. Less beer is consumed afterwards. The refs are all there and I bet average over 50 yr old and we all have those pesky comorbidities. My team probably has 4-5 of us over 50.

Kids have been doing clinics, camps, tryouts, tournaments now for months.

USHL just announced 54 game season starting Nov 6.
https://m.startribune.com/ushl-plans-fo ... 572153482/

NAHL starts before that.

What is MSHSL waiting for?

goldy313
Posts: 3608
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 11:56 am

Re: Minnesota Hockey Taking Over?

Post by goldy313 » Thu Aug 20, 2020 11:40 pm

My association allows kids to register for the youth hockey association but then allows a percentage of that fee to be refunded if the kid then makes the high school team. As youth hockey starts in September but high school does not start until November.

Look, the writing is on the wall..... the MSHSL already put. 30% reduction on games and no post season for Football and Volleyball, which they carved out a special season for.

goldy313
Posts: 3608
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 11:56 am

Re: Minnesota Hockey Taking Over?

Post by goldy313 » Fri Aug 21, 2020 12:05 am

blueblood wrote:
Thu Aug 20, 2020 4:49 pm
Is Hunters1993 = Sat81? Inquiring minds want to know... :-k

Sats always and only promoted his kids, political discussions were never an issue unless it involves the Lakeville school board. In which case it was always based on what he thought was best for his kids. It was crazy, most of his crap was on the record. Tim Poehling was there and in the record. There he was on the record, anything but subtle. What he said about the Randy Schmitz is scary. Hunters is way more political.

Wise Old Man
Posts: 228
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2019 8:11 pm

Re: Minnesota Hockey Taking Over?

Post by Wise Old Man » Fri Aug 21, 2020 1:51 am

HockeyCrazy1970 wrote:
Thu Aug 20, 2020 10:04 pm
I am now heading into week 6 for my beer league play and almost everything is the same as February. We go in the building with a mask on. Most guys take them off in the locker room. We play the game just like before, guys on the same bench breathing hard, etc. We don't shake hands afterwards... They want us out of the locker room faster. Less beer is consumed afterwards. The refs are all there and I bet average over 50 yr old and we all have those pesky comorbidities. My team probably has 4-5 of us over 50.

Kids have been doing clinics, camps, tryouts, tournaments now for months.

USHL just announced 54 game season starting Nov 6.
https://m.startribune.com/ushl-plans-fo ... 572153482/

NAHL starts before that.

What is MSHSL waiting for?


I'm not actually surprised that "Cigar" hasn't responded to the questions I posed to him yet. But, a number of you have made it clear your opinions lie on a similar side as his and yet, none of the rest of you have responded to the questions I posed to Cigar either. In fact, "WestMetro" actually asks those of us on the cautious side of the debate to answer HIS questions...actually kind of humorous in a way....Well "WestMetro", I will answer your questions but, before I do that, let me first provide more evidence that the potential long-term health issues the virus may present are becoming more and more challenging to ignore or brush off as it relates to the possibility of having to make the extremely difficult decisions to postpone or even cancel the season -- at the youth and high school levels. Here's a link to an ESPN article about the Georgia State quarterback having to sit out the entire season:

https://www.espn.com/college-football/s ... d-covid-19

Here's the opening paragraph from the article:

"Georgia State quarterback Mikele Colasurdo has been diagnosed with a heart condition as a result of contracting the coronavirus and won't be able to play football this season, he announced Thursday."

Huh...another high level, young athlete who developed has developed myocarditis after being infected with Covid. Weird.

Here's a link to a USAToday article that talks about the results of a recent study published by the Journal of American Medical Association;

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2 ... 344409001/

The study was done on "100 patients who had recovered from COVID-19. Heart imaging showed "cardiac involvement" in 78% of the patients and 60% "ongoing myocardial inflammation" among the participants." That's an incredibly high percentage of people affected. So, if 60-70% of kids that get infected end up with some level of myocarditis, that doesn't give you any pause about the real risk of trying to pay a "normal" season? I get it, NOBODY WANTS to have to cancel an entire season. However, even if the players lose a year of development, what good does it do to play if, in the end 7 of every 10 players that become infected has life long heart damage and can't play the sport in an organized fashion moving forward as USA Hockey or the MSHSL won't allow them to play due to the increased liability risk? Very interested to hear your guys' thoughts on this.

And, just in case you guys forgot or, are too lazy to go back and look at my previous post, here are the three questions I posed to "Cigar"
Just curious -- serious question here -- are any of you currently serving in any type of youth or high school sports administrative leadership position?

Next, what's your response/perspective in regards to the BIG10/Pac-12 choosing not to play fall sports due to the same potential medical concerns that the articles I provided lay out? As I stated last night, outside of the basic health of their athletes, those conferences/schools have a heckuva lot more to lose than than the MSHSL, So, if they're concerned enough to cancel, how do you defend putting even younger kids at risk?

How do you respond to the very real concerns that by allowing youth/high school athletics, especially team contact sports, we significantly increase the risk of secondary transmission to both the athletes' classmates and, more importantly, parents, coaches, officials, and teachers who are often older than 50 and have a much likely higher risks of pre-existing comorbidities?

So, while I'm waiting for all of you to answer my questions, I'll answer "WestMetro's" questions, as well as respond to the answers that "InThePipes" provided to "WestMetro's" questions. However, before I get to any of that, I have to respond to "HockeyCrazy's" last post.

"HC", I've explained in great detail what the MSHSL is probably waiting for. And, I've done it using very specific, well developed reasons, backed up by very specific facts and science in regards to the virus. You obviously don't agree with the bigger concept of emphasizing health and safety over "we have to get out and play!!". Fair enough. However, one of the main concepts to these types of forums is the idea that topics, some that are very controversial, can be discussed and debated in detail to see which sides best stands up to the proper scrutiny of the "other side". The problem is, if one side of a debate refuses to genuinely engage in the debate by actually addressing/answering the questions/points posed by the other side, then the topic being debated will never be fairly or properly fleshed out. And...to this point, none of you other than "Cigar" have even attempted to push back in a legitimate way. Unfortunately, "Cigar's" attempt didn't include a single detailed point of push back. Are the points I'm making so well thought out that none of you feel confident in responding or pushing back in a similarly detailed, fact and science based way? C'mon guys... engage in the debate. :wink:

However, in relation to the analogy you made regarding your recent "beer league" experiences... First, how do you know none of the guys who play or officiated haven't been infected but, were simply asymptomatic? To be honest, the reason none of you may have not been infected is probably... just simple pure luck. 8)

As for your other points about all of the other hockey choosing to play or, having been playing the last two months; there are a lot of medical experts/scientists with expertise around Covid that would tell you they don't think any of these games/tournaments should've played or should play moving forward until we have a vaccine. It's just that simple. And, I'll restate my point about the Iowa H.S. League's challenges with trying to finish their baseball and softball seasons after 25 different baseball teams and 20 different softball teams had to quarantine for 14 days at various points throughout the season. It was an absolute cluster-blank. How do you (and the others) explain what happens when we have one team in a section have a 18-2 record but didn't play a single team in the top 10 and, whose two losses were to .500 teams, while another team with two different 14 day quarantines has a 9-4 record, with 5 of their wins and 3 of their losses against top 10 teams? Who gets the top seed when there's that much of a difference in games played? I'd really like to hear how you guys solve that conundrum.

OK, now for my answers to "WestMetro's" questions.

1.) This one is easy but it sure as heck won't be popular... a vaccine with 60-80% efficacy. Otherwise, do what Michael Olsterholm suggested in his New York Times Op Ed piece two weeks ago which he wrote with the Chair of the Minneapolis Fed. An Italian level, 6 week lock down which allows us to get to 1 case in 100,000 people on a daily basis. That's approximately 3,300 positive cases nationwide per day or lower. Remember, we're at about 50,000 positives per day at the moment. As Olsterholm stated, that would allow us to do proper contact tracing and limit breakouts before they become super spreader events.

2.) Personally, I don't know why the MSHSL would consider doing a shortened season. And no, it doesn't prevent unnecessary spread to any real measurable level. To be fair, I haven't seen anything from any reputable source that indicates the MSHSL is seriously considering the shortened season option at this point.

3.) The way it's been explained to me by my state representative, the governors office isn't going to step into that situation unless the evidence becomes so overwhelming on the side of it being too risky for all sports to play, but not for just a few sports or a single sport. Obviously, at each level of amateur hockey (youth, H.S., Juniors, and NCAA) there is an associated national and state governing body that manages each level. And, governmental entities try their best to allow those governing bodies to figure things out. Not to mention the fact that, the issues with myocarditis, lungs, thyroid, and others have only become known in the last 45 days or so. And, since we all know government is usually pretty slow to react to these situations, it's not surprising government hasn't reacted yet. Let's be honest, at this point we haven't heard of any high school or younger hockey players being diagnosed with any of the issues I've mentioned. To be clear, that doesn't mean it hasn't happened, and possibly happened a lot. But, since it's now kids we're talking about, we're a LOT less likely to have heard about it.

4.) There is a very significant debate about this question on a national level, with numerous ADs, coaches, and school administrators falling on both sides of the question. There are very good arguments to support either side of the debate. Not sure surrendering all high school sports to their youth governing bodies would even be possible. However, and maybe I'm misunderstanding your question, why would surrendering all of the sports to their youth governing bodies "ignore all the learning benefits that athletics and teamwork provide." If I'm understanding you correctly, the lessons I think you're referring to are able to be learned whether the players are actually attending school or not.

5.) Agree with you completely on this. Do I think the finances of having or not having the boys state hockey tournament will be part of their discussions? I'm sure it will be. However, in the end, the fact that we still probably won't be able to put people in any numbers into the "X" by that time, will make it even easier for the MSHSL Board to base whatever decision they make as much about the potential health risks as possible, versus the money.

Now for my response to "InThePipes" responses to "West's" questions... :D

1.) Agree, hockey is on-going everywhere and has been for more than 2 months (STP, AAA, Tier 1, BEL, MASH, Junior camps, summer camps) with a few minor outbreaks for teams/facilities. I'd question the logic behind the proposal to reduce the ability of HS aged players to participate in hockey this winter by limiting the season length or games (which is already far shorter than youth seasons in MN and everywhere else in the country).

My response... "Pipes"... you're calling the outbreaks that have occurred as "minor". First, what's your definition of minor? Second, how do you know exactly how many people were infected at each event? Other than me providing the number for the Ashland outbreak as I know someone intimately involved in that situation? Next, you say you'd "question the logic behind the proposal to reduce the high school season or number of games." Please explain your specific reason(s) for questioning the logic. It's fine to question it but, give us your rationale.

2.) I don't understand the logic, I'm highly skeptical that playing half the games reduces the disease transmission by 50%. Of course, there is no way to know this with certainty and let's not even get into the modeling the U of M conducted back in April and May that the state has based it's early policy decisions on.

My response... I actually agree completely with you on this. Although your criticism of models regarding pandemic predictions is probably unwarranted. Why you ask? Because there is plenty of info out there from modeling experts who will tell you that the absolute most challenging thing to model are deaths in a pandemic outbreak as there are simply too many uncontrolled variables that can affect the various formulas they traditionally use.

3.) I would suggest the risk is acceptably low based on the experience in the first couple of months, there is never no risk (in anything you do). I also appreciate each family/individual is different and there are many families that may feel the risk is still too high based on a multitude of considerations, I can certainly respect that.

My response...."Pipes", I appreciate your acknowledgement that each family's situation or, how they approach the various risks can be very different. However, you also say that you "suggest the risk is acceptably low based on the last two months". Much like your previous statement that you believe the outbreaks were "minor", you don't provide any hard evidence that your perceptions are actually supportable by legitimate evidence. Again, most of the potentially significant health issues have only revealed themselves in the last 30 days. Along with the fact that the virus is now accepted as being aerosolized. Meaning, especially in indoor situations, the virus can survive in infectious levels on much smaller droplets than previously thought. This in turn allows the infectious particles to remain in the air within an indoor space for as long as a few hours, and maybe longer. As well as meaning the current 6ft social distance is probably not a safe enough distance in those specific situations.

4.) I think the major difference is Minnesota Hockey. There probably isn't a corresponding organization sitting in the background in football or other sports. This allows the opportunity for MSHSL to opt out if they feel the risk is too high and allow all families to make the choice if they want to participate or not under the USA Hockey/MN Hockey umbrella. If you want to participate here is your avenue, if you feel the risk is too high for your family that's understandable.

My response... Believe it or not "Pipes", I actually agree with your reasoning 100%. However, I can absolutely guarantee that if USA Hockey was on the hook from a Covid liability standpoint, they would've already announced that they weren't sanctioning a normal season. Which makes me ask all of you again, what happens when a youth hockey association gets sued because a player gets infected and ends up in the ICU? I don't know of too many associations that could handle the financial hit of simply defending themselves, let alone being able to pay out any level of damages if they lose. These are real considerations that any responsible administrator or board member has to consider if they're upholding their commitment to their respective organizations.

5.) Agree, I would suspect MSHSL will base their decision on the risk, probably not the revenue loss, at least that's what they'll state publicly. No doubt that revenue loss is going to be substantial this year, but playing a partial year does very little or nothing regardless of if they play no season or a partial season.

My response... Wow "Pipes", I basically agree with your reasoning here as well. I'll say one more time, I challenge all of you to answer the questions I posed to "Cigar".

WestMetro
Posts: 3094
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 4:08 pm

Re: Minnesota Hockey Taking Over?

Post by WestMetro » Fri Aug 21, 2020 11:06 am

Wise

Appreciate all your thoughtful remarks and I respect your opinions

As far as responding to:

“How do you respond to the very real concerns that by allowing youth/high school athletics, especially team contact sports, we significantly increase the risk of secondary transmission to both the athletes' classmates and, more importantly, parents, coaches, officials, and teachers who are often older than 50 and have a much likely higher risks of pre-existing comorbidities?“

I can only give you my opinion

My wife and I stayed locked down for a couple of months, then finally decided to start easing
out a little more. Getting back with the Kids and grandkids, lunches on patios at restaurants, getting to youth hockey games and tournaments etc . On other hand, we do all our shopping with on line delivery.

So that’s the level of activities and risk we’ve decided to accept for now

Other people have different Activity Levels and risk assessments

We are both in the older age group with preexistings. But we’ve just decided can’t stay locked down forever , so we accept sports risks just like all other society risks

wolfman
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 1:09 pm

Re: Minnesota Hockey Taking Over?

Post by wolfman » Fri Aug 21, 2020 10:24 pm

I just set my alarm for 2:30am. Can’t wait to read the wise old man 😏

goldy313
Posts: 3608
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 11:56 am

Re: Minnesota Hockey Taking Over?

Post by goldy313 » Fri Aug 21, 2020 11:27 pm

Myocarditis is only proven by a biopsy of cardiac tissue. Have any of the cases cited by the Big Ten been clinically proven?

Rails Hockey
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2020 9:51 am

Re: Minnesota Hockey Taking Over?

Post by Rails Hockey » Sat Aug 22, 2020 1:29 am

wolfman wrote:
Fri Aug 21, 2020 10:24 pm
I just set my alarm for 2:30am. Can’t wait to read the wise old man 😏
That was funny as hell, I don't care who you are. :)

Rails Hockey
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2020 9:51 am

Re: Minnesota Hockey Taking Over?

Post by Rails Hockey » Sat Aug 22, 2020 1:54 am

:
Last edited by Rails Hockey on Sat Aug 22, 2020 3:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

Wise Old Man
Posts: 228
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2019 8:11 pm

Re: Minnesota Hockey Taking Over?

Post by Wise Old Man » Sat Aug 22, 2020 2:37 am

wolfman wrote:
Fri Aug 21, 2020 10:24 pm
I just set my alarm for 2:30am. Can’t wait to read the wise old man 😏

Wolfman... although I'm honored you would be that interested in my diatribes, for your own good health I hope you're not waiting up that late to read my musings on a regular basis. :D

"WestMetro"....thanks for your well thought out response. Much appreciated. Of course, for some reason you chose not to address the other questions I asked. Hopefully, you choose to respond to the other two soon. :wink:

OK, since we're getting closer to what would normally be the start of the season for the various Junior leagues and the Elite League, I made a few phone calls to people I trust and I heard some very interesting things today. Much of it will throw at least a partial wrench in the points a few of you have made in trying to use the the fact that, for the last month or so, the USHL and NAHL have said they have every intention to play a full/normal season. So, why wouldn't the MSHSL or even Minnesota Hockey play a normal season? Well, all I can say is, Covid would like you to hold its' beer...

Before I dive into this, I want to state that if there is any way to have some type of hockey season that can legitimately be done in a truly Covid safe way, I will work as hard as I can in my local area to help make that happen. As I've stated previously, I have two kids in youth hockey and it will be an extremely long winter if there isn't at least some type of season. And, if there isn't a season, I'm going to have to hope the extra $600 in federal unemployment gets figured out, otherwise things will be a little tight come Christmas.

Now for the "good stuff". Most of what I was told is second-hand and, even possibly third-hand. However, I trust both the person I spoke with and, he has significant trust in the person who told him certain pieces of information. First, here's the "third-hand" info I was given. I was told that within the next two weeks, the NCAA -- not the conferences but the NCAA -- would announce the cancellation of the entire hockey season. Not a delay in the start to Jan. 1st, which is what all of the Div. III leagues and, I believe the Ivies have already announced, but an actual cancellation of the season. Now, to this point, it has been the individual conferences (BIG10, Pac-12, and the smaller conferences) that have chosen to halt sports until Jan. 1st, and not the NCAA. This begs the question, why would the NCAA now take the reins and make that type of determination, versus leaving it to the individual conferences? Still, as I said, I do trust my source and, in turn, his source. Obviously, we'll know in due time.

Next, let's move to the Junior level. I was told that the USHL would be delaying the start of their season until Nov. 1st. And, if the NCAA does actually cancel the entire Div. I & III seasons, I was told the USHL would then cancel its' entire season as well. I realize that all of that runs completely counter to everything the USHL has been saying. But, there may also be challenges arising with some of the cities who own some of the buildings their teams play in from the standpoint of either being told the team can only allow limited numbers of fans each game, which will drastically affect their bottom line. Or, the cities may choose to close the buildings completely for the season.

As for NAHL, apparently they had an emergency owners meeting this past Monday. At which their commissioner, Mark Frankenfeld, was adamant that the league would do everything in it's power to have a full season. Still, they have already postponed their big September Showcase in Blaine and, told it's teams that they won't be starting prior to either Nov. 1st or possibly Nov. 15th. Next, the other thing revealed during the meeting is that both Alaska teams, as well as the all of the teams in their Southern division are being forced to take the season off. Either due to being told they'll be limited to only 50 or less fans each night by their respective municipalities or, they simply won't be allowed to use their arenas at all. Also, for the Alaska teams, there may be some limitations on other teams coming in from other states and having to quarantine for 14 days. Again, that's some pretty significant info but, my sources feel strongly that it's true.

Although at this point the Elite League is planning to play, that could obviously change. Finally, I was told this afternoon by a completely different source, that the MSHSL has decided that they will make a final decision regarding winter sports on October 20th. That was apparently decided within the last couple of days. I will do my best to try and either confirm or deny everything I have stated here in the next few days. Regardless, for those like "HockeyCrazy", "InThePipes", and others, I will say again that just because all of the various camps, summer leagues, tournaments, and tryouts have been going forward has absolutely nothing to do with whether any of the various leagues will play this coming winter. Those responsible for making those decisions for those leagues don't give a rats rear end what happened during the summer. It's all about liability and whether the potential known (and not yet known) risks from Covid 19, outweigh the benefits of playing.

One other thing I learned today is that the main (and possibly only) reason why USA Hockey chose to sanction a normal game play season is essentially about money (I know, shocking). Both the potential loss in individual player, coach, team, and officials' registrations, as well as the fact that if they chose not to sanction a normal season, it would create chaos with all of the Junior leagues and private clubs around the country. Including the possibility that a number of the private hockey clubs might choose to register with the AAU which, apparently the USA Hockey brass were worried might not come back the following year. Personally, as interconnected as USA Hockey is with the various upper-level development tracks, I highly doubt those teams wouldn't rejoin USA Hockey next fall.

Oh, I almost forgot. One last thing. A little birdie told me tonight that, there is a long-tenured, extremely successful high school coach whose future at his current school may -- emphasis on MAY -- be in jeopardy. If this is true, it's extremely sad and unfortunate in my opinion. Apparently, just this past week, his players' parents began the process to pursue his removal. Why now and at this point in the year, I have yet to hear. But, I should be able to find out. I apologize but, that's all I'm comfortable saying at this moment.

Hey "wolfman"... If you're up, I hope you enjoy what I've written! :P

Wise Old Man
Posts: 228
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2019 8:11 pm

Re: Minnesota Hockey Taking Over?

Post by Wise Old Man » Sat Aug 22, 2020 2:55 am

goldy313 wrote:
Fri Aug 21, 2020 11:27 pm
Myocarditis is only proven by a biopsy of cardiac tissue. Have any of the cases cited by the Big Ten been clinically proven?
"Goldy"...this is a link to the Mayo Clinic website;

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-con ... c-20352544

Here's what they list under "Diagnosis"...

Diagnosis

Early diagnosis is key to preventing long-term heart damage. After a physical examination, your doctor might order one or more tests to confirm that you have myocarditis and determine its severity. Tests might include:

Electrocardiogram (ECG). This noninvasive test shows your heart's electrical patterns and can detect abnormal rhythms.
Chest X-ray. An X-ray image shows the size and shape of your heart, as well as whether you have fluid in or around the heart that might indicate heart failure.

MRI. Cardiac MRI will show your heart's size, shape and structure. This test can show signs of inflammation of the heart muscle.

Echocardiogram. Sound waves create moving images of the beating heart. An echocardiogram might detect enlargement of your heart, poor pumping function, valve problems, a clot within the heart or fluid around your heart.

Blood tests. These measure white and red blood cell counts, as well as levels of certain enzymes that indicate damage to your heart muscle. Blood tests can also detect antibodies against viruses and other organisms that might indicate a myocarditis-related infection.

Cardiac catheterization and endomyocardial biopsy. A small tube (catheter) is inserted into a vein in your leg or neck and threaded into your heart. In some cases, doctors use a special instrument to remove a tiny sample of heart muscle tissue (biopsy) for analysis in the lab to check for inflammation or infection.

As I'm sure you realize, most of the BIG10 have extremely large and highly respected research hospitals. So, if they say they've diagnosed myocarditis, I'm pretty confident it's accurate. Also, the following are links to five very informative articles that discuss potential post-Covid side effects/maladies and, their potential effects on the athletes, as well as more specifics about what the BIG10's medical advisory group was finding in their athletes that caused the postponement of fall sports.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/07 ... scientists#

https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/07/08/fr ... ing-marks/

https://www.si.com/college/indiana/foot ... art-damage

https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-myoca ... 07b31.html

https://www.endocrineweb.com/covid-19-p ... id-disease

"Goldy", please give these a read and let me know what you think.

Locked