Lifelongbender

I must admit that I heard echoes of some of what you have said on this board in this article, @The King.

I've been to Alpha, Ice Castle, and YMCA in Bethel. Ice Castle had, at that time, no actual restrictions at all effectively in place. Absolutely nobody was wearing a mask or even attempting to social distance during the few days I was there in the past few weeks. Alpha was about half and half but this was several weeks ago now so I don't know what they are doing at this time. YMCA is enforcing the 20 player limits, requiring masks to enter the building, and not allowing parents into the building except to tie skates and then leave the building. Parents have not been permitted to watch tryouts or any other skates there at all. They're taking the restrictions they have in place quite seriously.

This is exactly right, @fafa fohi. While masks may or may not be effective, and it may or may not be reasonable to force everyone to wear them, and it may or may not be an infringement upon our rights, etc., if wearing masks is the (honestly fairly small though annoying) price we have to pay to get on with our lives, more or less, then you just do it. We have been discussing elsewhere, among myriad posts about what a high opinion many of this board's members have about each other, how disregarding the order by just one or two rinks/organizations may cost all of Western PA a season. The short version of all of this is that you have to do what you have to do. Having said that, @Scooby Doo, nothing about that makes me happy, either.

I think I agree with all of this, @aaaahockey.

It's been posted before but it still bears discussion when it comes back up.

We spend a good bit of time talking about the costs of hockey, and where the money goes, on this board. To the end of fostering a reasonable conversation, this article from The Hockey Think Tank is a worthwhile read: https://thehockeythinktank.com/2019/03/26/the-cost-of-aaa-hockey/ The Hockey Think Tank always has good content - well thought out and well written blog posts. This one, agree with all of it or not, will resonate with a good number of folks on this message board.

Careful, boys - we almost reverted to talking about hockey right there. I can't imagine how that would even work.

Possibly the best post in the history of this site.

I have to disagree here. While tryout fees may have the unintended, or at best partially intended, effect of reducing the "tune up mentality", they're definitely used to generate income for the organizations. For many organizations they are a huge windfall, since the fee they charge is spread over (in most seasons) 50-60 kids for two hours of ice, after which a depressing number of players do not take their placements and are therefore not a further cost to the organization. It's pure profit. Also, if we are being honest, I'd bet that very few people who are reading this board know more than a couple of players who only try out at their "home" organization every season, whatever the costs may be. Players do this for a variety of reasons, some the classical team shopping, some tuning up, some to have a few on-ice sessions with friends, a good number because their parents think they are better players than they actually are, and some for no obvious reason at all. But a high percentage of kids (no good way to estimate it, but half or more would be completely unsurprising to me) try out at more than one organization every season. If you're curious about how being a 501(c)3 affects profitability, you only need to demand to see a balance sheet from the organization. If you can get it, you'll note that most local organizations have a large amount of money in the bank. Some reserve is obviously needed - this summer, organizations have been unable to collect any money at all from season fees, on-ice clinic fees, etc., and needed money to keep operating - but I have seen a couple of these from different organizations and I can tell you that the ones I saw would surprise you. Without making claims I can't substantiate about organization officials using the money themselves, I will say that I suspect that most parents have no idea how little board members pay at most organizations for their kids to play a season.

My kids went to tryouts for one school program and three different amateur programs between them. Nothing at all out of the ordinary compared to previous years, except that they were limiting the number of kids on the ice at once at two of the three amateur tryouts, and the lateness of the tryout dates.

The tryouts we have attended have been well attended as well. Our organization is very close to the same number of players trying out this season as last season.

Thanks for clearing that up, because honestly I couldn't find information that was unambiguous and non-contradictory online.

There are conflicting reports online regarding the accuracy of the tests currently available. Just a survey of the results on the internet suggests that a healthy skepticism is appropriate, but that it may be that one or more of the tests are actually truly accurate. I don't think that anyone really knows how accurate any of them are in the field under working conditions. I do remember reading (I thought it was in the New York Times, but I can't find the article, so I can't be sure) that the tests in use at that time (probably this was in April) produced as many as 30% false positives. The article went on to discuss how a false positive is probably better than a false negative in the sense that if you take precautions because of a false positive, that's far better than taking risks because you erroneously believe you are definitely negative. This is a basic principle of this sort of testing. The article also went on to discuss at length that the dangers of a high number of false positives include overly negative assessments of public exposure, and the simple fact that even if everyone were negative, you'd still believe that 30% of people were positive, thereby preventing lifting of any public safety measures. If that 30% was correct at the time, which I cannot prove, and which number seemed stupidly high to me at the time and still does, one has to hope that with everyone working on a test method the accuracy of the testing has improved substantially.

@Denis Lemiuex, you couldn't be more right. The number of bizarre scenarios that can be generated from this document is breathtaking, and fun. For instance, what's not mentioned in it at all is that, under scenario 2, where they permit 25 people per half ice, there's only one bench in a half sheet of ice. Only one team in a cross ice game can put their players somewhere off-ice. How is that going to work at ANY level, much less U16 and U18? How do you manage penalties in such a stupid situation? One team won't even have a bench for their players to serve a penalty on. Surreal.

I looked around briefly yesterday and didn't find any, no. I'd be most interested in hearing about them. These guidelines could completely kill youth hockey in Michigan, at least for the time they're in place.

Easier access to the link: https://cdn4.sportngin.com/attachments/document/844b-2168647/MAHA_Return_to_the_Game_2020-21_-_V3.pdf#_ga=2.28090490.732783428.1592404452-1746626322.1592404452

So, this is from the MAHA website. In this document they list three scenarios of modified play, to be used in various conditions up to fully open. Note that they are planning to limit teams to ten skaters, one goalie, and one coach AT ALL LEVELS. One referee at a game. Even at 18U. Hell, there's even a theoretical scenario in there where the state allows splitting the ice and 25 people per half, in which games up to and including 18U would be played 4x4, cross ice. (Which is fun sometimes for a holiday practice at that level, but for league play?) I'd heard that Michigan might not be allowing out of state teams to travel there for tournaments and/or games. I didn't find that specific restriction in this document, but as a friend pointed out, who would want to go there to play by those rules anyway? I figured some conversation on this topic might prepare us all for what might be coming. Strange days, indeed.

Where my kids are currently skating there are, for all practical purposes, no restrictions at all already. I think you are right.

Given the state of affairs at the rinks in the South Hills, I would say that hockey people, as a whole, aren't concerned about it. Time will tell about what will happen if an actual resurgence in cases ever happens. I don't see things ever shutting down again for this particular issue, but I've been wrong before.

LOL. Don't forget the wonderful Rupps! Now that was a hockey store.

hehe. Fair enough. Thank God my kids are old enough to dress themselves and tie their own skates nowadays.

Seriously, who in their right mind leans over and takes a whiff of any item AT ALL in a hockey arena! You're not wrong, I'm just saying...

In Western PA, there is generally a place for everyone to play. PAHL has B level brackets at every level - well, it's more like A minor for midgets, but that's a distinction without a difference. What wester PA does NOT have, for the most part, is house leagues. If you're playing, you're playing on a team that plays all around the metro area.

While entertaining, this isn't very informative.

I've heard a number of people who are more or less respected in the hockey community around here express doubt about whether there will be a season at all this year. I, on the other hand, agree 100% with the logic here.