Minnesota Hockey Taking Over?

[ThatMNHockeyGuy62]

Wise Old Man, regarding coaching levels, I think but I’m not positive that they recently did away with the level requirements for older ages. So a level 1 can coach mites or can coach bantams. Somebody correct me if I’m wrong there.

[elliott70]

For the most part the district director controls all hockey within the district.
That would invlude travel.

[blueblood]

62 is correct. That’s why there are age level modules that must be taken.

Two other points, MSHSL has date deadlines for rostering purposes and game/period played limitations.

[HockeyCrazy1970]

What does the group think the impact would be on a complete free-for-all for where a kid would play or if it was tied to some geographic boundary (supposedly like it is now) what would the private schools do who don't have a geographic border?

[WestMetro]

Terminology clarification

Private School Leagues

Vs

Private Leagues ( Ie Elite or Blades)

[wolfman]

I think there will be at least 45+ new jr gold teams come this fall.

[WestMetro]

I suppose Lee will freeze the thread

But this topic begs the question

If MinnHockey Association JGold surges , while mshsl varsity withers or folds ....

Presumably they are looking at the same scientific disease data ...

Therefore , unless you think one entity believeS data and the other doesn’t...

The only other remaining difference is the liability risk assessment

Since both JGold and HS play at generally the same municipal rinkS , the municipality Itself can’t view the rink disease liability risk much differently?

So it must be either the school board risk , the mshsl administrators Risk , or some type of waiver which associations can insist on that school boards can’t ?

A shame to see the whole apple cart upset by different liability impressions

Any forum lawyers out there Care to comment?

[Hunters1993]

All ready have talked about liability. MSHSL sees the liability and that is why the won’t have a season. What would be the motivation for MSHSL? They see the risk to kids and the liability that they want nothing to do with. The associations see a huge amount of money coming their way because people want to play whether there is risk or not. Minnesota Hockey gets paid and they have no risk . The money is there for the taking and hickey dads are dying to get their kid on a team cone winter.

[WestMetro]

Hunters , saw your post ..,

But why would the Minnesota Hockey Board , District Directors and local association management think they have any less liability risk than the MSHSL Board and School BoardS - that’s what I’m trying to understand ?

Insurance policy differences? Waiver differences ?
Other?

[Wise Old Man]

I suppose Lee will freeze the thread

But this topic begs the question

If MinnHockey Association JGold surges , while mshsl varsity withers or folds ....

Presumably they are looking at the same scientific disease data ...

Therefore , unless you think one entity believeS data and the other doesn’t...

The only other remaining difference is the liability risk assessment

Since both JGold and HS play at generally the same municipal rinkS , the municipality Itself can’t view the rink disease liability risk much differently?

So it must be either the school board risk , the mshsl administrators Risk , or some type of waiver which associations can insist on that school boards can’t ?

A shame to see the whole apple cart upset by different liability impressions

Any forum lawyers out there Care to comment?

Not a lawyer but, it's not surprising that different oversight/governing bodies might interpret/weigh the pertinent medical info/liability risk differently. Or, more specifically, that the lawyers for one organization interpret the liability risk differently than a different organization's lawyers. Just look at what's happened in Power 5 Div. I football. All five of them with medical advisory boards made up of some of the most respected experts in the world regarding Covid. Yet, two conferences have decided there's too much risk -- although they haven't provided all of the specifics that drove their decision -- yet, the other three have decided to try and play.

At the high school level, almost every state registers their sports with the National Federation of High Schools and yet, different states have made different decisions about whether to play or not to play this fall. Now, some of those decisions have been either "helped" or, actually made by the governors of some of those states. Regardless, there are obviously different risk assessments being made by different statewide governing bodies.

Since USA Hockey has determined they will "sanction" a "normal" game play season at the national level, that provides initial liability cover for their various affiliates, Minnesota Hockey included. Personally, I find USA Hockey's decision interesting. Even though the BIG 10/Pac-12 decisions involve FAR greater financial effects, USA Hockey is a true "national" organization with programs in all 50 states. In which, there are very different levels of Covid infection/community spread that might drive the decisions to play a normal season by the local or regional affiliates.

The other risk that USA Hockey would take by not sanctioning a normal season, is that in most areas of the country, the sport is organized on a "private club based" model versus our statewide/community based model. So, if USA Hockey chose not to offer a season, there is a very good chance that a number of those clubs nationwide would choose to register with AAU or, buy private insurance for this season. Personally, even if USA Hockey chose not to sanction a normal season and a number of those clubs did choose to register with AAU or get private insurance, I doubt that USA Hockey would lose any of those organizations permanently if hockey was back to normal next year. USA Hockey is just too interconnected with the upper-level development leagues/opportunities, including the IIHF, NCAA, and NHL. Still, I suppose if you're sitting in Colorado Springs trying to decide which way to go, the majority of board members would prefer to avoid having to answer that question if at all possible.

Now, combine the organization's financial risk from the previous paragraph and add in the fact that USA Hockey is also/can be influenced by the larger sub-organizations that they sanction/support -- USNDP, USHL, NAHL, NA3 -- which makes it even easier to understand why the USA Hockey leadership would lean more to sanctioning a season versus not doing so. The USHL and NAHL are actual businesses that exist to make a profit first and develop players second. Meaning, I'm quite confident that both of those leagues put significant pressure on USA Hockey to "interpret" the possible "risk" in a way that at least gave those two leagues (and the USNDP) an opportunity to try and have a season. Although, since most localities won't allow for more than 50% attendance at a sporting event, I find it hard to believe any of those teams would come close to being in the black, even if they're able to play a full season.

As others here have noted previously, both the USHL and NAHL have been proclaiming fairly loudly for at least a month now that they had every intention of playing a "normal" season. Far earlier than USA Hockey announced it's decision nationally to sanction normal game play. Sure seems as though USA Hockey may have been put between a rock and a hard place regarding its' decision. Does that mean Minnesota Hockey couldn't decide on its' own to not sanction normal game play if their lawyers determined it was more of a risk than USA Hockey did? I think MH probably could decide that, although I'll obviously defer to Elliott on that as he's actually been in the room this summer for those discussions.

Regardless of what USA Hockey or Minnesota Hockey have decided, to me it is a bit surprising they seem to be deciding that the risk is less than what the BIG10 and Pac-12 have decided it is. Especially considering the "worst-case scenario" is the possibility of a player dying from Covid that was determined to have caught it as a result of playing in a USA/MH sanctioned activity. Or, even if it's a player developing myocarditis or some type of long-term lung issue. Before any of you get too wound up about those last two sentences, I completely acknowledge the very low chance for any player to actually die from a Covid-related issue. Although I don't believe we have a complete understanding of the risks regarding the possible long-term heart or lung issues yet. Which, is what the preliminary information regarding the BIG and Pac-12 decisions seem to be based on.

Back to liability. When USA Hockey released their initial "Return to the Rinks" guidelines in conjunction with the U.S. Figure Skating Association and, the U.S. Rink Association back in early June, at the very end of the document was the following disclaimer:

DISCLAIMER
"The following considerations are provided for general informational purposes only and are not intended
as, and should not be relied upon as, specific medical or legal advice. You are strongly encouraged to
consult with qualified medical personal/public health officials for medical considerations and to local,
state and federal orders and or laws for legal considerations. If you use any considerations provided for
herein, you do so at your own risk and you specifically release from any and all liability United States
Ice Rink Association, U.S. Figure Skating, USA Hockey, and their directors, officers, employees, volunteers,
and agents in connection with your use of the enclosed considerations."

Obviously, at that time USA Hockey was making it extremely clear that their standard membership insurance wasn't going to cover ANY Covid related legal challenges. Since then, USA Hockey has released more detailed "Return to Play" directives, along with providing a FAQ opportunity with their Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Michael Stuart of the Mayo Clinic regarding questions parents and administrators might have from the medical perspective. I also just spent a solid hour reviewing everything on the USA website that might address any possible udate/change regarding Covid related liability coverage concerns and yet, other than the disclaimer above from the initial "Return to the Rinks" document, I can't find a single statement in any of their policies, procedures, insurance parameters, or player safety info, that provides any specific guidance/clarity as to whether the standard USA Hockey insurance provides any coverage of any Covid-related legal challenges.

Actually, if you review the standard USA Hockey Insurance Handbook, on page 6 under "Exclusions From Coverage", it states the following: "Coverage excludes losses caused by, or resulting from the following: self-inflicted injuries; suicide; war;
illness or infections; travel in any aircraft (except as a fare paying passenger on a commercial aircraft
operated by a licensed, regulated carrier); being under the influence of alcohol, illegal drugs or narcotics.
In addition, the member must meet a $1,000 out-of-pocket expense obligation, per accident, before
this coverage begins."

Note, I bolded and italicized "illness and infection" on my own. The point being, the normal USA Hockey insurance already indicates it wouldn't cover any Covid related legal challenges. This really makes me wonder about what truly is the potential liability to individual associations for potential Covid lawsuits?!? Has USA Hockey chosen to "sanction" a "normal" season knowing they weren't accepting ANY risk of Covid related lawsuits anyway? To continue providing even more perspective, I offer the following article from "The Aspen Institute -- Project Play", entitled; 'Wild West'; Youth Sports Providers Weigh Liability Risks.

This article is from May 8th so, some of the items discussed/presented may have changed since then but, I highly recommend all of you read it as it provides some interesting and stark commentary from those in the sports liability insurance universe that I find concerning. Here's the link:

https://www.aspenprojectplay.org/corona ... lity-risks

Here are a few of the more striking statements from the article:

"Like many youth sports providers these days, Steel Soccer executive director Craig McGinn is talking with insurance agents. Steel Soccer, a youth soccer training organization that works in more than 20 states, wants to understand how to protect itself legally should it reopen and gets sued for something related to the coronavirus pandemic.

Insurance agents “described it like trying to buy hurricane insurance during a hurricane,” McGinn said on a recent LeagueApps webinar. “Most insurance companies don’t want to touch this thing right now. The way it was best described to me is even when (pandemic insurance becomes available), it may be so expensive that a lot of clubs can’t afford it.”

"How travel, community and high school sports return to play depends in part on a legal question: What level of liability risk can an organizer afford to accept, especially since there’s essentially no insurance coverage now for communicable diseases?"

“Insurance carriers are so hesitant right now because they’re under siege from all of these COVID claims from every line of business,” said Lori Crispo, area president for RPS Bollinger Sports & Leisure, which is the insurance administrator for US Lacrosse. “I can’t get answers on what specifically I can tell clients they’re covered for. It would all depend on the allegation. It’s the wild, wild west.” Or as Lee Gaby, a risk insurance management executive for Albert Risk Management Consultants, put it: “What insurance? There is none.”

To the best of his knowledge, Gaby said insurance companies’ policies with school districts do not cover communicable diseases. RPS Bollinger’s school programs do not, at this time, have a communicable disease exclusion.

“That’s a big problem,” Gaby said. “All of the liability is on the school district. The insurance industry is not even going to entertain a claim arriving on COVID-19. If a child comes back to play and somehow gets sick and parents say, ‘It happened because you let my child play sports with another child,’ the insurance company is going to say, ‘Sorry, it’s not a covered risk.’ You’re handling the legal defense on your own.”

UCLA business law professor Steven Bank said he doubts insurance companies will ever want to cover COVID-19, given how widespread the potential exposure is of the virus and the payouts they’re trying to avoid now on existing policies. That’s why I think insurers have the power here. Cases are hard to win in court, but insurance companies don’t want to take that risk.”

Crispo advised that youth sports providers first check to see if their policy has a communicable disease exclusion. If that language exists, it’s clear your organization isn’t covered for COVID-19. If a youth sports organization or school district does get sued, establishing that a person contracted the virus at the sport events will be difficult, Bank said. Theoretically, the person could have become infected anywhere in the community over a two-week incubation period.

“There may be a lot of correlation, but it will be challenging to establish the sports event is the cause,” Bank said. “On the other side, if you get to a jury and you didn’t follow the customary precautions identified by your sanctioning body or whatever is considered the standard of care, then that’s going to look bad that you didn’t take the necessary steps.”

Expect to see youth sports providers increasingly asking parents to sign waivers that would theoretically protect the organizations against COVID-19 lawsuits. Waiver applicability varies by state laws. The waivers have not always held up in court, and even if parents sign away their child’s rights now, the child could still sue in the future at an older age.

“Waivers are a good idea because the insurance coverage right now is so wacky,” Crispo said. “The real intent for the waivers is to get rid of the nuisance claims – someone gets injured, wants to roll the dice and see if they can get some money, and they go to (a semi-educated lawyer) who says, ‘You have a waiver, forget it.’ The larger claims may not be covered by waivers.”

To close, the research I've done tonight has definitely motivated me to dig a little deeper in regards to this topic. Still, for those of us wondering what the various state governing bodies might be considering as they weigh the decision to return to normal game play or not, I think what's stated in the article adds more perspective to the difficulty these boards face in trying to make the best decision possible and, why there's probably a tendency to wait until the last possible moment to actually make the decision in order to allow for the absolute latest and best information to be available. I'm interested to hear what the rest of the group's reaction is to what I've provided.

[WestMetro]

Incredible research Wise.

I guess the MSHSL and school boards will probably tend to take the path of least resistance, which is probably more of a liability avoidance and political decision than a medical decision? Even though the USA Hockey sanction guidance probably gives them as much theoretical cover as it does to Minnesota Hockey and the Associations, for whatever thats worth if anything.

They will probably partly rationalize that sports is not as much of a core important mission as reading , writing, and arithmatic is. Therefore, why put School Board assets and administrators at financial risk for kids chasing a rubber puck with a stick. Even though math classroom exposure has risk also, particularly as the kids come in and out the door and in the hallways, even if only for a couple days a week. After all, kids breathe and cough there too, right?

Sad, in that net result could be to separate hockey from high schools, a critical link in the history of the game in the State of Hockey. Hope it all can be put back together later.

"Splitting the baby" with a season of only a dozen or so games seems like a non season. Agree with the previous poster who said , rather than doing, that that MSHSL should just surrender the season to MinnHockey and let them do there own thing with a decent U18 season in the associations.. , as well as longer seasons for private leagues like Blades or Elite.

Side note: I watched the news coverage of some HS soccer practice the other night. If MSHSL cancels hockey, I will have a hard time understanding how breathing on one another on the soccer field is much different than on the rink. Even though kids are more separarted on a bigger field of play, there is a obviously a lot of bunching up and contact. So over the course of the game, breathing on one another is unavoidable.

[Hunters1993]

Same as wise old man with less to weave through. It’s that simple. Same end result!

All ready have talked about liability. MSHSL sees the liability and that is why the won’t have a season. What would be the motivation for MSHSL? They see the risk to kids and the liability that they want nothing to do with. The associations see a huge amount of money coming their way because people want to play whether there is risk or not. Minnesota Hockey gets paid and they have no risk . The money is there for the taking and hickey dads are dying to get their kid on a team cone winter.

[Wet Paint]

If MH takes over, coaches will need the following:

1) register with USA Hockey.

2) complete USAH background check

3) complete SafeSport training

4) complete Age appropriate training (u-16/u-18 module)

5) be current on USAH level certification. Once level 4 is attained no additional level move up or recertification is required.

All HS coaches who are active in High Performance programs would have completed these steps.

Most if not all of the bantam coaching staffs have these met anyhow so coaching is not the issue. Sure, the high end high school hockey coaches will have to scramble a little bit if they want to coach a U16/U18 team. The problem is the political power that the high school coaches wield. In many cases, especially smaller towns or towns with just enough players to make a team the high school coaches do not want those kids to have another place to play hockey. The second you tell that 3rd line kid that he can go play a JR Gold season with 55 games and maybe be a second or 1st line kid as opposed to sitting on the end of the bench getting a shift here or there and being practice cannon fodder for the 1st line kids he is gone. The attitude is my way or the highway with those coaches. If you want to play hockey (and what kid who started skating before he was out of diapers and has played since with his buddies does not want to) you either go with my program or you have to quit. Sure, Jr Gold costs more money but it is pretty much what their parents paid to have them play Bantams so why not? This virus crap is not going to last. Short term it is a great idea to start a Jr Gold team or play USA high school hockey. The games are way better than they used to be. Controlled and etc so not the old time fight club environment it used to be.

The high school hockey coaches would rather torpedo the system, blame it on the virus and try again next year than to take a chance of those U16/U18 teams sticking around and offering kids a way to play hockey without being held hostage and losing the power and prestige that they have/are building up within the community.

[elliott70]

Same as wise old man with less to weave through. It’s that simple. Same end result!

All ready have talked about liability. MSHSL sees the liability and that is why the won’t have a season. What would be the motivation for MSHSL? They see the risk to kids and the liability that they want nothing to do with. The associations see a huge amount of money coming their way because people want to play whether there is risk or not. Minnesota Hockey gets paid and they have no risk . The money is there for the taking and hickey dads are dying to get their kid on a team cone winter.

Apparently you have never been involved with a local association or MH.

[WestMetro]

Wet Paint

Interesting thoughts about HS coaches perspectives on the situation

But what would prevent the Lake Conf youth associations , for example , each marshalling a “Varsity” JGold team, with Giles, Oleary , Smith, Goldy and the others taking the coaching job? Might look like a step down. , but would it be in the best interest of their kids that didn’t go to juniors or private leagues?

[InThePipes]

Wet Paint

Interesting thoughts about HS coaches perspectives on the situation

But what would prevent the Lake Conf youth associations , for example , each marshalling a “Varsity” JGold team, with Giles, Oleary , Smith, Goldy and the others taking the coaching job? Might look like a step down. , but would it be in the best interest of their kids that didn’t go to juniors or private leagues?

That's precisely what I think should be pursued almost immediately. As I previously acknowledged, nobody can predict where Covid will go from here, but why waste even 1 more day waiting for the MSHSL to make a decision on if they're going to allow a "truncated season with no playoffs"? Just turn it over to MN Hockey tomorrow and allow the HS aged players to play a "full" season (or as full of a season as Covid will allow), just like every other player BT age or below may have the potential opportunity to do in MN. Why walk into this already knowing you're only going to have a maximum of a 12-15 game season?

[Wet Paint]

Wet Paint

Interesting thoughts about HS coaches perspectives on the situation

But what would prevent the Lake Conf youth associations , for example , each marshalling a “Varsity” JGold team, with Giles, Oleary , Smith, Goldy and the others taking the coaching job? Might look like a step down. , but would it be in the best interest of their kids that didn’t go to juniors or private leagues?

That's precisely what I think should be pursued almost immediately. As I previously acknowledged, nobody can predict where Covid will go from here, but why waste even 1 more day waiting for the MSHSL to make a decision on if they're going to allow a "truncated season with no playoffs"? Just turn it over to MN Hockey tomorrow and allow the HS aged players to play a "full" season (or as full of a season as Covid will allow), just like every other player BT age or below may have the potential opportunity to do in MN. Why walk into this already knowing you're only going to have a maximum of a 12-15 game season?

The basic setup that MNHockey should/will want is not going to be a 1 year deal. They will want to use this to get high school hockey (I don't mean MNHSL, I mean USA hockey) into a town/school system and keep it. I think that is a great idea. The high school hockey coaches in the lake conference will not hve a problem with that. It is already there in the U16/U18 form. There will be no reason for them to get involved. There are great coaches for those teams already there with lots of great coaches in the pipeline. They will lose a year, yes, but next year or the year after when covid goes away their programs will not be affected anymore than they are now. On the other hand how would a high school coach who has the only program in a smaller town or in a smaller program feel when his kids are offered the opportunity to go play 55 games of hockey with their buddies as opposed to being a 3rd liner on a team? Or for that matter kids who know they are not turning pro, going to juniors, going to play hockey in college or etc. They play hockey because it is fun and the chicks dig hockey players. Those kids are now offered 2 choices. Play by my rules (or sit on the bench by my rules) or don't play. All for a 16 game season. Look at those kids who are sitting on the bubble in places like Hermantown right now. They know that they are basically 1 draft pick away from either 3rd line or not getting to be on the team. How many of them would take off and not even look back if they could go play 55 games with their buddies? Lots of them? Most of them. Sure the 1st line kids won't move out. Not a problem, The back up kids will. There goes your depth and your practice cannon fodder. The coaches love it. They have kids who have to play by their rules and who have to play where they are told even if they have came up through the program and now are looking at a kid from another town being drafted into the progam. The true power here is in the hands of the high school hockey coaches. They have the power (and they do use it) to prevent Jr Gold teams from coming in. You are on the youth hockey board? Have a kid who wants to play for him at the high school level? Do you think that if you as ayouth hockey board member approves that U16/U18 team that your kid is gonna make the high school hockey team if you do? Not a chance. That is the power and the issue. This will work in the big cities. It won't work in the smaller towns and cities where the youth boards do what the high school coaches tell them to do because the high school coaches do not want to lose their monopoly on the kids. This needs to happen across the state but it won't which is too bad. The level of hockey in the U16/U18 world is good hockey.

[WestMetro]

Well stated Paint! Some things never change! Even during Covid and civil unrest and other crazy
times!

“They play hockey because it is fun and the chicks dig hockey players“

[InThePipes]

I don't have an opinion/preference on where it'd go from here into the future. What I am suggesting is a "1 year Covid approach" where instead of having an Edina team playing in the MSHSL, they instead are sanctioned by MN Hockey and play the exact same 25 game HS schedule and section playoff format that they already have planned. I'm NOT at all suggesting they go to a 50+ game JG schedule and try to make it to nationals.

Basically, it's just a way to get around the "season" that MSHSL is said to be pursing of 12-15 games with a December 15th start date with no playoff. If MN Hockey takes it over, they could potentially start in November and run into March just as they would have otherwise in a non-Covid environment.

[WestMetro]

Pipes

If Lake coaches Giles,Smith, Oleary, Goldy told their kids to sign up for JGold right now to protect their options later , that would put some sizeable pressure back on mshsl , the school boards , and all their law firms

I suppose also that Elliott and his buddies at MH could call up the Wild/Xcel and tell them they would like to sign an agreement for a JGold tourney at the X next March if Mshsl backs out by canceling or cutting the season

[InThePipes]

Pipes

If Lake coaches Giles,Smith, Oleary, Goldy told their kids to sign up for JGold right now to protect their options later , that would put some sizeable pressure back on mshsl , the school boards , and all their law firms

I suppose also that Elliott and his buddies at MH could call up the Wild/Xcel and tell them they would like to sign an agreement for a JGold tourney at the X next March if Mshsl backs out by canceling or cutting the season

MH could also contact KSTC and let them know they have an idea for alternative programming for their station in March when MSHSL cancels their hockey state tournaments

[hockeylogger33]

Will the MSHSL willingly hand over it's biggest money maker in the State Tournament? Even if it is just for a year. That is a huge amount of revenue, both tickets and TV. Especially TV if limited fans are allowed.

I can't imagine they are in a position to give this up, even for one year.

[Wet Paint]

I don't have an opinion/preference on where it'd go from here into the future. What I am suggesting is a "1 year Covid approach" where instead of having an Edina team playing in the MSHSL, they instead are sanctioned by MN Hockey and play the exact same 25 game HS schedule and section playoff format that they already have planned. I'm NOT at all suggesting they go to a 50+ game JG schedule and try to make it to nationals.

Basically, it's just a way to get around the "season" that MSHSL is said to be pursing of 12-15 games with a December 15th start date with no playoff. If MN Hockey takes it over, they could potentially start in November and run into March just as they would have otherwise in a non-Covid environment.

The USA hockey model for midget hockey is used by most other states for high school hockey. It is good hockey. There is no way that MNHSL will give this up willingly. Never. They will lose control and once those kids get into that 55 game season with midgets where they can go play they are not gonna go back to 16 games. The other part of Midget hockey is that you can travel. You are Ely or Proctor and getting smoked by Hermantown and etc? No big deal. Go play a weekend series with a team in Wisconsin or someplace who is at your level of hockey. You are Edina and want to go play some teams? Go to Chicago and play Victory Honda, Belle Tire, The Mission. Teams like that. THose are fun teams to play and the level of competition is crazy high. Sadly this won't fly with MNHSL, and will not happen. Someday but not now.

[Wet Paint]

Will the MSHSL willingly hand over it's biggest money maker in the State Tournament? Even if it is just for a year. That is a huge amount of revenue, both tickets and TV. Especially TV if limited fans are allowed.

I can't imagine they are in a position to give this up, even for one year.

They would lose control of it completely and they know it. Right now there is no way this happens. Also, the control would leave the schools too since USA Midget hockey is run through local associations and not through schools. The schools lose gate money and control over what level and where they play. Too much power and too much money for anybody associated with MN High School sports to let this get going. Once they get off of the farm and see the bright lights of the big city they ain't going back down to the farm.

[oldtimer64]

I think we’re missing an option. There’s the AAU option for teams. Minnesota Hockey doesn’t control this option. If say a group wanted to put together a team, they can do so through AAU and pretty much have no restrictions. Now I may not have all the details on this option but I sure someone on here does.