The Largest Prep Hockey Message Board Community on the Web
https://ushsho.com/forums/
Dog wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 7:33 pmYou are right! Sorry about that!
elliott70 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 9:33 amHunters1993 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 9:25 am From school site
High schools students will transition from distance learning to the hybrid model on Monday, Sept. 28. Staff have been working hard to make sure we have everything in place to bring students back into the buildings safely.
As a reminder, in a hybrid model, high school students will return to school buildings two days per week with enhanced health, cleaning, and distancing protocol at 50% capacity. Students will learn remotely on the other days. Limited capacity in the schools will allow for maximum physical distancing. Students can find their “Hybrid A” or “Hybrid B” group assignments in Campus Portal. More information will be shared with high school families before Sept. 28. At this time, no changes will be made in the elementary and middle school learning models, or to the Online Learning Academy.
Give it a month or two and wait for the move back to online. We can play the game all day naming schools going one way or another.
Dodge county
Kasson-Mantorville
Albert Lea
That is just in last week. Give it time.
Hunter, we all know you are concerned for your children and others.
BUT, some of us are trying not to live in fear. Some of us are trying to find ways to make it work and provide some degree of normalcy for the young people in our communities. Is there a risk? Of course. But hiding is not an appropriate answer for me. I will (am) doing things to try and make it work with an ear to the ground for adaption.
I have one fear in life and covid-19 is not it.
AMEN!elliott70 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 9:33 amHunters1993 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 9:25 am From school site
High schools students will transition from distance learning to the hybrid model on Monday, Sept. 28. Staff have been working hard to make sure we have everything in place to bring students back into the buildings safely.
As a reminder, in a hybrid model, high school students will return to school buildings two days per week with enhanced health, cleaning, and distancing protocol at 50% capacity. Students will learn remotely on the other days. Limited capacity in the schools will allow for maximum physical distancing. Students can find their “Hybrid A” or “Hybrid B” group assignments in Campus Portal. More information will be shared with high school families before Sept. 28. At this time, no changes will be made in the elementary and middle school learning models, or to the Online Learning Academy.
Give it a month or two and wait for the move back to online. We can play the game all day naming schools going one way or another.
Dodge county
Kasson-Mantorville
Albert Lea
That is just in last week. Give it time.
Hunter, we all know you are concerned for your children and others.
BUT, some of us are trying not to live in fear. Some of us are trying to find ways to make it work and provide some degree of normalcy for the young people in our communities. Is there a risk? Of course. But hiding is not an appropriate answer for me. I will (am) doing things to try and make it work with an ear to the ground for adaption.
I have one fear in life and covid-19 is not it.
Rails Hockey wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 10:13 amAMEN!elliott70 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 9:33 amHunters1993 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 9:25 am From school site
High schools students will transition from distance learning to the hybrid model on Monday, Sept. 28. Staff have been working hard to make sure we have everything in place to bring students back into the buildings safely.
As a reminder, in a hybrid model, high school students will return to school buildings two days per week with enhanced health, cleaning, and distancing protocol at 50% capacity. Students will learn remotely on the other days. Limited capacity in the schools will allow for maximum physical distancing. Students can find their “Hybrid A” or “Hybrid B” group assignments in Campus Portal. More information will be shared with high school families before Sept. 28. At this time, no changes will be made in the elementary and middle school learning models, or to the Online Learning Academy.
Give it a month or two and wait for the move back to online. We can play the game all day naming schools going one way or another.
Dodge county
Kasson-Mantorville
Albert Lea
That is just in last week. Give it time.
Hunter, we all know you are concerned for your children and others.
BUT, some of us are trying not to live in fear. Some of us are trying to find ways to make it work and provide some degree of normalcy for the young people in our communities. Is there a risk? Of course. But hiding is not an appropriate answer for me. I will (am) doing things to try and make it work with an ear to the ground for adaption.
I have one fear in life and covid-19 is not it.
Here in Duluth, the East and Denfeld High Schools are 100% distance learning and the extracurriculars are ongoing. Soccer teams are playing (250 in the stadium, etc.), cross-country meets are occurring, etc. as in other districts where kids are in class part-time or full-time.
If you are 100% distance, (Elem/Middle/High) you cannot participate per the rule put in place in August by the MSHSL. If Elementary is at least Hybrid but Middle and High School Distance, you can participate. You also have Distance with In Person Support, which I believe also allows you to participate. I believe it’s only if no child is allowed in school for any reason at any level that you can’t participate.
Elementary is Hybrid in Duluth, which allows them to participate in the MSHSL.Duluthguy wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 10:25 amHere in Duluth, the East and Denfeld High Schools are 100% distance learning and the extracurriculars are ongoing. Soccer teams are playing (250 in the stadium, etc.), cross-country meets are occurring, etc. as in other districts where kids are in class part-time or full-time.
Hunters1993 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 10:00 amelliott70 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 9:33 amHunters1993 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 9:25 am From school site
High schools students will transition from distance learning to the hybrid model on Monday, Sept. 28. Staff have been working hard to make sure we have everything in place to bring students back into the buildings safely.
As a reminder, in a hybrid model, high school students will return to school buildings two days per week with enhanced health, cleaning, and distancing protocol at 50% capacity. Students will learn remotely on the other days. Limited capacity in the schools will allow for maximum physical distancing. Students can find their “Hybrid A” or “Hybrid B” group assignments in Campus Portal. More information will be shared with high school families before Sept. 28. At this time, no changes will be made in the elementary and middle school learning models, or to the Online Learning Academy.
Give it a month or two and wait for the move back to online. We can play the game all day naming schools going one way or another.
Dodge county
Kasson-Mantorville
Albert Lea
That is just in last week. Give it time.
Hunter, we all know you are concerned for your children and others.
BUT, some of us are trying not to live in fear. Some of us are trying to find ways to make it work and provide some degree of normalcy for the young people in our communities. Is there a risk? Of course. But hiding is not an appropriate answer for me. I will (am) doing things to try and make it work with an ear to the ground for adaption.
I have one fear in life and covid-19 is not it.
My point is that this PANDEMIC is far from over. Check out last two weeks over month period.
Sports or in class education. That is what it is going to come down to. We aren’t going to get both.
WestMetro wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 10:46 am Good one!
Dave Spehar
@MNHockeyStar
Atleast Hermantown won’t be able to have Moorhead, Eden Prairie, Wayzata, LS, Hill-Murray, Totino, Mahtomedi, and SCC on the schedule this year. Finally they’ll be forced to play a single A schedule.
10/2/20, 10:22 AM
WestMetro wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 9:44 am Interesting podcast by Pete W and Ken P.
https://anchor.fm/pete-waggoner3/episod ... -12-ekfvm4
Elliott , can you add any Minnesota Hockey perspectives to what KP is suggesting?
Regardless, notice Ken goes to the whole 99.9% of the kids that get infected "at this age" have a mild experience after using his college-aged daughter as an example..i.e... none of these kids are dying from this. Does he know for a fact his daughter doesn't have myocarditis or permanent lung scarring as a number of asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic have come down with? Doesn't sound like it. I would refute some of your points above, but Ken Pauley already did that in the same Pod Cast that you're referencing:Wise Old Man wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 1:55 pm Going to address some of the points made here and on the podcast.
1.) It doesn't matter how many players have played whatever events since we got back into the rinks in June -- and I'm addressing specifically some of the figures that Ken Pauley put forth in the podcast about how many people involved in the fall hockey opportunities have supposedly been infected total or, infected directly thru their hockey involvement. First, he puts out data that was not generated by the MDH or any other health agency. At least, he doesn't specifically mention that. And, if that's where he had gotten it, I'm pretty sure he would've mentioned that as that would only increase the level of credence to that data. Also, considering HIPPA issues and callenges, it's very likely his numbers are only coming from self-reported cases to the STP or other fall programs. Meaning, those numbers are nowhere near accurate. Especially considering the significant hockey related spreading events that we and others have already discussed that we know did occur since rinks re-opened in June.
Also ...since 40% of all infected are asymptomatic, and even more have only mild symptoms, AND as a previous poster pointed out, and this the key point to the entire idea of attempting to do this "safely"...the average upper level player (and his parents) playing on a AAA summer team or, high school JV or Varsity WILL, due to the years of time and money already spent, along with the average mindset that these parents and players actually think at age 12 and above they're actually going to be playing Div. I hockey, be predisposed to have a mindset of..."the risk isn't that great" and "we can find a way to play" and.."gee, my son has what could be symptoms but, he really can't miss this weekend's tourney"...OR... "if he's positive, the whole team will have to pull out of the tourney and we're not going be responsible for that so, we're not going to get him tested or even keep him home"...OR....a player gets to the rink and has obvious symptoms, do you REALLY think that coach of that AAA or even high school team is going to send the player home?..especially if they're at an out of town tourney OR, especially if it's a top 5 player on the team? If you answer yes to any of the last few questions and have ANY experience in any "upper level" youth sports than you're lying your A** off.
2.) Very few associations will have the time or volunteer strength to run a "4 week bridge season". It's October 2nd. If Ken Pauley really thinks that the youth associations are going to be able to do everything that would need to be done in less than three weeks to get these "bridge" teams done and schedules set, he's whacked. And...due to all of the SafeSport and background check requirements -- about 10 days from start to finish on the background checks -- USA/Minnesota Hockey is not going to make mass exemptions for those requirements so high school assistant coaches can coach a bridge team. Meaning, the youth associations would somehow have to find enough coaches when they're already struggling to find even two coaches per team already.
Ken is like everyone else whose life truly revolves around the sport. He's predisposed to WANTING it to work. Don't get me wrong, I get it. I know Ken a bit and, I respect him. For the umpteenth time, my actual financial profession is directly related to the game at a pretty high level. In fact, I'm pretty sure I make more money each year directly from my hockey activity than Ken does
FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR...more importantly, it's about who the players, coaches, and officials might infect when they go back to their immediate and extended families. Ken also goes to the argument many here and other places have tried to make -- "we can't keep these kids inside or protected FOREVER" (he says forever but, my emphasis)... Again, how is a single season -- the very likely scenario based on current vaccine projections -- meet anyone's definition of "forever"? That continues to be one of the dumbest lines of reasoning put forth.
3.) Ken then gets on the topic of the state tournament. Here I am going question his basic reasoning skills a bit. He makes the statement that if the MSHSL is going to try to have a season, it is "obligated" to try to have a state tournament. As a larger point about the challenge of keeping kids playing high school hockey, versus losing them to "other opportunities". I'm sorry but, to me, this makes it obvious his greater motivation in all of this is simply to protect his (and the other high school coaches') turf. Regardless, Ken then makes the statement that since the MSHSL is having financial difficulties, it doesn't make any sense not to maximize every revenue stream possible. And then, 5 minutes later, says he understands that we couldn't have 20,000 people in a building. Really Ken? Talk about talking out of both sides of his mouth...It seems strange that Ken chose to spend so much time researching the infection numbers for fall hockey, but that he wouldn't know that, at the moment, the state isn't allowing more than 250 people into any indoor event which would obviously make any attempt at any kind of state tournament in literally every sport a financial loser. In turn, only making the MSHSL's financial situation even worse. If he's THAT clueless about the overall finances of high school sports, it's just another example he's only concerned about how we can "make it work".
Oh..and then he says when questioned about possible "blow back" from ADs..."there's always potential for that in individual communities where the decision-making isn't as tight as we'd hope or, the AD isn't as pro hockey as we'd like or, maybe not pro kid as we'd hope"... followed by a sarcastic cackle. Really Ken? Just because an AD might see things differently from a risk assessment standpoint and is more cautious means he's not "pro kid"?!? Wow...
I'm glad we're going to try and have a season. However, no matter how we attempt to justify how or why we are "trying to make it work", there absolutely is a risk/benefit equation that will include potential, unnecessary and preventable permanent disability or even death by moving forward. I guess it just comes down to how we as individuals choose to rationalize that probability/guilt in each of our brains.
I've heard this statement a few times before. It always comes from the people whose kids don't play extra hockey, either because they don't want to, the parents don't want to, or they don't have the skill set to do it. So they have to mock it to make themselves feel better about their own situation, or use it to justify whatever agenda they have.the average upper level player (and his parents) playing on a AAA summer team or, high school JV or Varsity WILL, due to the years of time and money already spent, along with the average mindset that these parents and players actually think at age 12 and above they're actually going to be playing Div. I hockey, be predisposed to have a mindset of..."the risk isn't that great" and "we can find a way to play
Rails Hockey wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 2:36 pmI would refute some of your points above, but Ken Pauley already did that in the same Pod Cast that you're referencing:Wise Old Man wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 1:55 pm Going to address some of the points made here and on the podcast.
1.) It doesn't matter how many players have played whatever events since we got back into the rinks in June -- and I'm addressing specifically some of the figures that Ken Pauley put forth in the podcast about how many people involved in the fall hockey opportunities have supposedly been infected total or, infected directly thru their hockey involvement. First, he puts out data that was not generated by the MDH or any other health agency. At least, he doesn't specifically mention that. And, if that's where he had gotten it, I'm pretty sure he would've mentioned that as that would only increase the level of credence to that data. Also, considering HIPPA issues and callenges, it's very likely his numbers are only coming from self-reported cases to the STP or other fall programs. Meaning, those numbers are nowhere near accurate. Especially considering the significant hockey related spreading events that we and others have already discussed that we know did occur since rinks re-opened in June.
Also ...since 40% of all infected are asymptomatic, and even more have only mild symptoms, AND as a previous poster pointed out, and this the key point to the entire idea of attempting to do this "safely"...the average upper level player (and his parents) playing on a AAA summer team or, high school JV or Varsity WILL, due to the years of time and money already spent, along with the average mindset that these parents and players actually think at age 12 and above they're actually going to be playing Div. I hockey, be predisposed to have a mindset of..."the risk isn't that great" and "we can find a way to play" and.."gee, my son has what could be symptoms but, he really can't miss this weekend's tourney"...OR... "if he's positive, the whole team will have to pull out of the tourney and we're not going be responsible for that so, we're not going to get him tested or even keep him home"...OR....a player gets to the rink and has obvious symptoms, do you REALLY think that coach of that AAA or even high school team is going to send the player home?..especially if they're at an out of town tourney OR, especially if it's a top 5 player on the team? If you answer yes to any of the last few questions and have ANY experience in any "upper level" youth sports than you're lying your A** off.
2.) Very few associations will have the time or volunteer strength to run a "4 week bridge season". It's October 2nd. If Ken Pauley really thinks that the youth associations are going to be able to do everything that would need to be done in less than three weeks to get these "bridge" teams done and schedules set, he's whacked. And...due to all of the SafeSport and background check requirements -- about 10 days from start to finish on the background checks -- USA/Minnesota Hockey is not going to make mass exemptions for those requirements so high school assistant coaches can coach a bridge team. Meaning, the youth associations would somehow have to find enough coaches when they're already struggling to find even two coaches per team already.
Ken is like everyone else whose life truly revolves around the sport. He's predisposed to WANTING it to work. Don't get me wrong, I get it. I know Ken a bit and, I respect him. For the umpteenth time, my actual financial profession is directly related to the game at a pretty high level. In fact, I'm pretty sure I make more money each year directly from my hockey activity than Ken does
FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR...more importantly, it's about who the players, coaches, and officials might infect when they go back to their immediate and extended families. Ken also goes to the argument many here and other places have tried to make -- "we can't keep these kids inside or protected FOREVER" (he says forever but, my emphasis)... Again, how is a single season -- the very likely scenario based on current vaccine projections -- meet anyone's definition of "forever"? That continues to be one of the dumbest lines of reasoning put forth.
3.) Ken then gets on the topic of the state tournament. Here I am going question his basic reasoning skills a bit. He makes the statement that if the MSHSL is going to try to have a season, it is "obligated" to try to have a state tournament. As a larger point about the challenge of keeping kids playing high school hockey, versus losing them to "other opportunities". I'm sorry but, to me, this makes it obvious his greater motivation in all of this is simply to protect his (and the other high school coaches') turf. Regardless, Ken then makes the statement that since the MSHSL is having financial difficulties, it doesn't make any sense not to maximize every revenue stream possible. And then, 5 minutes later, says he understands that we couldn't have 20,000 people in a building. Really Ken? Talk about talking out of both sides of his mouth...It seems strange that Ken chose to spend so much time researching the infection numbers for fall hockey, but that he wouldn't know that, at the moment, the state isn't allowing more than 250 people into any indoor event which would obviously make any attempt at any kind of state tournament in literally every sport a financial loser. In turn, only making the MSHSL's financial situation even worse. If he's THAT clueless about the overall finances of high school sports, it's just another example he's only concerned about how we can "make it work".
Oh..and then he says when questioned about possible "blow back" from ADs..."there's always potential for that in individual communities where the decision-making isn't as tight as we'd hope or, the AD isn't as pro hockey as we'd like or, maybe not pro kid as we'd hope"... followed by a sarcastic cackle. Really Ken? Just because an AD might see things differently from a risk assessment standpoint and is more cautious means he's not "pro kid"?!? Wow...
I'm glad we're going to try and have a season. However, no matter how we attempt to justify how or why we are "trying to make it work", there absolutely is a risk/benefit equation that will include potential, unnecessary and preventable permanent disability or even death by moving forward. I guess it just comes down to how we as individuals choose to rationalize that probability/guilt in each of our brains.
"The School District Doesn't own your kids, the Superintendent doesn't own your kids, the State of MN doesn't own your kids. Parents own their kids."
We've lived with this Virus for 8 months now. We've watched, we've observed, we've researched, we've been back and forth, we've listened to people that we trust, we've seen people in our communities test positive, we've seen how those people reacted to it, we've seen the political side of it. We've watched Sports played safely over and over again. We've learned.
People are fully equipped and fully capable of making their own decisions at this point. That's called an Educated choice.
The debate is over in my opinion. If you're not comfortable with your kid playing, THEN KEEP THEM HOME. That is your choice. You don't get to make that choice for others. That's not how it works. It really is as simple as that.
I've heard this statement a few times before. It always comes from the people whose kids don't play extra hockey, either because they don't want to, the parents don't want to, or they don't have the skill set to do it. So they have to mock it to make themselves feel better about their own situation, or use it to justify whatever agenda they have.the average upper level player (and his parents) playing on a AAA summer team or, high school JV or Varsity WILL, due to the years of time and money already spent, along with the average mindset that these parents and players actually think at age 12 and above they're actually going to be playing Div. I hockey, be predisposed to have a mindset of..."the risk isn't that great" and "we can find a way to play
I want my kid to play as much Hockey and other Sports as he wants to. He loves the game, loves Sports and it's great for him in so many ways. I don't want him to miss a Season, I don't want him to miss out on anything that he wants to do. To me the risk of isolation outweighs the risk of playing Sports. I want him to play. Never at any point in his career have I thought that he was going to play Division 1. And I've never met anyone else along the way that felt this way either. That is not, "the average mindset." Light years away from it actually. But I suspect that you already know that.
Rails Hockey wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 2:36 pmI would refute some of your points above, but Ken Pauley already did that in the same Pod Cast that you're referencing:Wise Old Man wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 1:55 pm Going to address some of the points made here and on the podcast.
1.) It doesn't matter how many players have played whatever events since we got back into the rinks in June -- and I'm addressing specifically some of the figures that Ken Pauley put forth in the podcast about how many people involved in the fall hockey opportunities have supposedly been infected total or, infected directly thru their hockey involvement. First, he puts out data that was not generated by the MDH or any other health agency. At least, he doesn't specifically mention that. And, if that's where he had gotten it, I'm pretty sure he would've mentioned that as that would only increase the level of credence to that data. Also, considering HIPPA issues and callenges, it's very likely his numbers are only coming from self-reported cases to the STP or other fall programs. Meaning, those numbers are nowhere near accurate. Especially considering the significant hockey related spreading events that we and others have already discussed that we know did occur since rinks re-opened in June.
Also ...since 40% of all infected are asymptomatic, and even more have only mild symptoms, AND as a previous poster pointed out, and this the key point to the entire idea of attempting to do this "safely"...the average upper level player (and his parents) playing on a AAA summer team or, high school JV or Varsity WILL, due to the years of time and money already spent, along with the average mindset that these parents and players actually think at age 12 and above they're actually going to be playing Div. I hockey, be predisposed to have a mindset of..."the risk isn't that great" and "we can find a way to play" and.."gee, my son has what could be symptoms but, he really can't miss this weekend's tourney"...OR... "if he's positive, the whole team will have to pull out of the tourney and we're not going be responsible for that so, we're not going to get him tested or even keep him home"...OR....a player gets to the rink and has obvious symptoms, do you REALLY think that coach of that AAA or even high school team is going to send the player home?..especially if they're at an out of town tourney OR, especially if it's a top 5 player on the team? If you answer yes to any of the last few questions and have ANY experience in any "upper level" youth sports than you're lying your A** off.
2.) Very few associations will have the time or volunteer strength to run a "4 week bridge season". It's October 2nd. If Ken Pauley really thinks that the youth associations are going to be able to do everything that would need to be done in less than three weeks to get these "bridge" teams done and schedules set, he's whacked. And...due to all of the SafeSport and background check requirements -- about 10 days from start to finish on the background checks -- USA/Minnesota Hockey is not going to make mass exemptions for those requirements so high school assistant coaches can coach a bridge team. Meaning, the youth associations would somehow have to find enough coaches when they're already struggling to find even two coaches per team already.
Ken is like everyone else whose life truly revolves around the sport. He's predisposed to WANTING it to work. Don't get me wrong, I get it. I know Ken a bit and, I respect him. For the umpteenth time, my actual financial profession is directly related to the game at a pretty high level. In fact, I'm pretty sure I make more money each year directly from my hockey activity than Ken does
FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR...more importantly, it's about who the players, coaches, and officials might infect when they go back to their immediate and extended families. Ken also goes to the argument many here and other places have tried to make -- "we can't keep these kids inside or protected FOREVER" (he says forever but, my emphasis)... Again, how is a single season -- the very likely scenario based on current vaccine projections -- meet anyone's definition of "forever"? That continues to be one of the dumbest lines of reasoning put forth.
3.) Ken then gets on the topic of the state tournament. Here I am going question his basic reasoning skills a bit. He makes the statement that if the MSHSL is going to try to have a season, it is "obligated" to try to have a state tournament. As a larger point about the challenge of keeping kids playing high school hockey, versus losing them to "other opportunities". I'm sorry but, to me, this makes it obvious his greater motivation in all of this is simply to protect his (and the other high school coaches') turf. Regardless, Ken then makes the statement that since the MSHSL is having financial difficulties, it doesn't make any sense not to maximize every revenue stream possible. And then, 5 minutes later, says he understands that we couldn't have 20,000 people in a building. Really Ken? Talk about talking out of both sides of his mouth...It seems strange that Ken chose to spend so much time researching the infection numbers for fall hockey, but that he wouldn't know that, at the moment, the state isn't allowing more than 250 people into any indoor event which would obviously make any attempt at any kind of state tournament in literally every sport a financial loser. In turn, only making the MSHSL's financial situation even worse. If he's THAT clueless about the overall finances of high school sports, it's just another example he's only concerned about how we can "make it work".
Oh..and then he says when questioned about possible "blow back" from ADs..."there's always potential for that in individual communities where the decision-making isn't as tight as we'd hope or, the AD isn't as pro hockey as we'd like or, maybe not pro kid as we'd hope"... followed by a sarcastic cackle. Really Ken? Just because an AD might see things differently from a risk assessment standpoint and is more cautious means he's not "pro kid"?!? Wow...
I'm glad we're going to try and have a season. However, no matter how we attempt to justify how or why we are "trying to make it work", there absolutely is a risk/benefit equation that will include potential, unnecessary and preventable permanent disability or even death by moving forward. I guess it just comes down to how we as individuals choose to rationalize that probability/guilt in each of our brains.
"The School District Doesn't own your kids, the Superintendent doesn't own your kids, the State of MN doesn't own your kids. Parents own their kids."
We've lived with this Virus for 8 months now. We've watched, we've observed, we've researched, we've been back and forth, we've listened to people that we trust, we've seen people in our communities test positive, we've seen how those people reacted to it, we've seen the political side of it. We've watched Sports played safely over and over again. We've learned.
People are fully equipped and fully capable of making their own decisions at this point. That's called an Educated choice.
The debate is over in my opinion. If you're not comfortable with your kid playing, THEN KEEP THEM HOME. That is your choice. You don't get to make that choice for others. That's not how it works. It really is as simple as that.
I've heard this statement a few times before. It always comes from the people whose kids don't play extra hockey, either because they don't want to, the parents don't want to, or they don't have the skill set to do it. So they have to mock it to make themselves feel better about their own situation, or use it to justify whatever agenda they have.the average upper level player (and his parents) playing on a AAA summer team or, high school JV or Varsity WILL, due to the years of time and money already spent, along with the average mindset that these parents and players actually think at age 12 and above they're actually going to be playing Div. I hockey, be predisposed to have a mindset of..."the risk isn't that great" and "we can find a way to play
I want my kid to play as much Hockey and other Sports as he wants to. He loves the game, loves Sports and it's great for him in so many ways. I don't want him to miss a Season, I don't want him to miss out on anything that he wants to do. To me the risk of isolation outweighs the risk of playing Sports. I want him to play. Never at any point in his career have I thought that he was going to play Division 1. And I've never met anyone else along the way that felt this way either. That is not, "the average mindset." Light years away from it actually. But I suspect that you already know that.
Good back and forth though Rails. I always appreciate your posts.