Lifelongbender

I'm sorry to hear that. I can only speak for the ones my kid went to, which he was personally there for, and the mandatory coaches checking clinic I went to when I started coaching bantams a few years back, which he ran personally, and which was better than what I expected. I thought those were good sessions. I'd be disappointed, too, if I had those experiences. I'm nearer to where he is, though. Might be that he's more likely to come out himself down this way.

Well, however he may have practiced as a player, his on-ice sessions are pretty good. I haven't watched his off-ice videos, though. I'd guess they are pretty good.

Yeah, that one was a good one, too.

There's a remarkable article on The Athletic (sadly, a pay site) about a small number of the things that made Mario great. The video cuts are worth reading the whole article. I don't normally think posting this sort of thing here is right, but in a spring with no hockey, this article is a breath of much needed oxygen. https://theathletic.com/1685688/2020/03/19/marshall-the-tape-on-what-made-mario-lemieux-le-magnifique/

Perhaps I was unclear, if you sincerely thought that first sentence was what I meant. Those two sentences are not mutually exclusive. From a regulatory standpoint, the government is making at large decisions about businesses being closed and gatherings being restricted. At the same time, I do think that, like virtually all companies and organizations in the US, USA Hockey is setting their own official policies, in addition to those of the Federal and State authorities. In general, those policies are probably based upon, or actually nothing more than references to, government policies. I am entirely unsure what would happen if, for some reason, the government said it was OK to resume normal living and USA Hockey still wanted people to hold off on hockey operations. It's not clear to me what effect a USA Hockey policy would have in this case. Since the organizations rely upon USA Hockey for collective insurance, they may have more influence on organized hockey operations than expected. The assertion made above that the purpose of insurance provided by USA Hockey is to protect USA Hockey is only partially true; the insurance makes it much less expensive (and, perhaps in some cases, is the only thing that makes it possible) for local organizations to have insurance to protect the local organizations, and to protect the rinks. Without the insurance provided by USA Hockey, it's likely that many organizations would not be able to afford insurance in order to have operations. This is all academic, anyway, because I strongly doubt that USA Hockey would adopt a policy that was at odds with a government policy. In the case of complying with a government policy, that is its own built-in defense in a court room (which could be either weak or strong, depending upon the issue and the case, and the locality).

Obviously I don't agree with all of this, but the final truth is that we will see what happens. It's easy for any of us - myself included - to make predictions we will ultimately not be held up to scrutiny for.

You just can't have tryouts, or any other events, in the face of a set of best practices prepared by the governing body. This is for both liability and optics reasons. Nobody will hold tryouts if USA Hockey tells us not to.

That's an interesting take, @sadday4hockey. I hadn't considered the financial component of the current crisis in my model. I don't think it changes how tryouts will work, though. On the other hand, there is probably an interesting discussion to be had on the potential effects of the COV-19 situation on hockey in the region in general, assuming that it continues to be an issue for any significant period of time. Surely there will be financial effects in everyday lives over time. That was a very interesting answer.

Since this is exactly how organizations schedule normally, this seems the most likely outcome this time too.

Honestly, and sincerely, that's great. That's probably how it should be. I'm not an expert on other organizations, but in my organization the top teams are, in general, pretty much set (maybe needing to add a player or two) LONG before tryouts. I'd guess that's true of others, too.

This is surely 100% true. Well, yes, assuming that the ice is available. Many rinks have already contracted out their ice for the summer nearly completely. This is a challenge. It's not an easy situation, sadly.

This as been on my mind. One assumes that contingency plans have to be in place (though the way that most organizations work, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that most of them don't have a plan at all). I know I have been talking to people about this at our organization. My kids are scheduled to tryout in mid April, and their tryouts begin just at the outside edge of most closures. It's certainly interesting times.

They told my son's JV team that it was postponed. Honestly I suspect cancelled anyway.

I agree. Whether or not they are the same person, one thing is clear: it's not worth feeding their fire by responding to them just to argue about who is a parent on a team. They both say things worth debating from time to time, but in the end those discussions seem to always turn to accusations that the other party in the discussion is a parent on the team, as if that is somehow sufficient to invalidate whatever that person may be saying. I'd love to debate hockey topics here, and not have to spend time arguing about whose kid plays on what teams. That's not worth discussing, except where it has an actual bearing on a conversation rather than merely being intended to somehow belittle a parent. For the record, my kids don't play for ANY of these organizations, and are both A players. I enjoy this discussion board when there are useful discussions about hockey and related topics. I don't see how arguments about who has the bigger stick are useful. It's best to just ignore the boorish behavior (when it happens, and from anyone) rather than giving the guys who post that stuff what they want: attention. Just my $0.02.

Going to be a long spring...

The looming question is this: what effect, if any, will COV19 and the related travel and assembly advisories and bans have on organizational tryouts, many of which are scheduled in the next 6-8 weeks? I think this is going to blow over before my kids have tryouts, but how the heck can we know? And how can we predict the effects of fear on attendance?

Right. Exactly right. The teams that get talked about most on here - the travel teams and "AAA" teams - are vastly more expensive to play on than just the organizational fees. I think there are lots of parents who aren't entirely clear that this is true, or just by how much it is true.

All of this doesn't even touch on the disastrous effects Pens Elite hockey has had on girls' hockey in the region.

It's hard to imagine happening. Right now they're driving to Harmarville for practices and games, aren't they? Can't see how they'll develop NCAA D1 class talent with having to travel that far for daily practices. The rinks that true D1 school have on campus are too good in terms of not just ice but amenities for the players. There's nothing like that there, nor will there EVER be anything like that in Oakland, or at the Armory, if that ever happens. D1 players have recreation and study rooms, training tables, film and classroom facilities, weight rooms, and trainer facilities at their fingertips. Nobody truly good enough to play Varsity D1 will be attracted to whatever facility Pitt can offer in anything like the foreseeable future when they can play at Pegula, or Compton at Notre Dame, or the facilities offered by BU. It's just economics.

Here's the article: https://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/news/2019/11/18/state-to-fund-500k-rebuilding-of-street-outside.html I work in highway construction. This is a totally insignificant amount of money for a roadway project. My memory must've been rattled by that puck...

I read elsewhere that PennDOT had committed a considerable amount of money to upgrade some roads in the area. I am still skeptical of whether the road system in the area can handle the volume, but that's been said. I'll try to find that article and post it. I still think that the local residents will be VERY unhappy once this project is complete. For my part, though, I'd love to finish a beer league game and hit Noodlehead's for dinner.

One struggles mightily to understand how a discussion about the merits of installing an ice rink - 1) in the City of Pittsburgh and 2) at the Hunt Armory specifically -could devolve into an argument about the relative intelligence or manliness of the forum participants. It's hard to get any value out of the any of the more serious discussions here with this sort of reduction to the absurd going on. This was actually one of the more healthy discussions on the forum until about ten messages ago. Put them away, boys. And, as someone said elsewhere, stop feeding the animals.

To follow up on this, a few years ago I tried to buy a block of tickets to Pegula Arena for a peewee team after a game we were playing out there, and I was told that the arena was sold out until 2027 or something absurd like that.

There was a reasoned discussion (and I know how unlikely that sounds) on the topic of icing on the PK on the board last January (2019). You can find that discussion by looking for a thread called "PAHL Rule Question". I'm sorry, though. I just don't see how eliminating the delayed offsides makes anything better for the players, or gives them any more chances to "make a play WITH THE PUCK on their stick". I honestly don't get how that improves either the quality of the game or the learning experience for the player. It means that when a player fails to hold the blue line but quickly collects the puck, they have little choice but to skate back towards their own zone under pressure or cause an offsides if the D2D pass is well defended. That's just not how hockey is played, nor would that be an improvement for adults. There's an argument that eliminating free icing for the PK would be a good thing for the game. No such argument exists for eliminating delayed offsides.

This. And this doesn't even mention the effect they have on costs for girls who hope to be able to play somewhat seriously, but who don't want to/can't play co-ed at U14.