UPD: US Women's NT and USA Hockey reach deal

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

You'd have to think the idea of replacement players is just a negotiation tactic. I assume any fringe players would be showing support to the main team and wouldn't want to be known as scabs for the rest of their career. Is the US really going to send the C or D team? They would get smashed by Canada and silver wouldn't even be a guarantee.

When push comes to shove, it's entirely possible that an opportunity to represent their country at a world championship might mean more to them. We'll see.

[Northendzone]

I was wondering if the A team is currently practicing/training together today? the tourney is next week.

What would it say about the state of womens hockey worldwide if Team USA was currently not practicing as a team, then they get together last minute and have a T3 finish

[CaptainCrunch]

That its business as usual for Woman's international hockey?

Frankly I can't even be bother to watch any of it anymore because the non north american teams aren't getting any better, they're fairly horrible.

There's no struggle to get to the finals, so why is that interesting.

I'm pretty sure that Canada and the US could recruit from club teams and face off in the finals. I tend to remember at some point they were going to pull womans hockey from the Olympics because its really Goliath and King Kong with a club versus a asthmatic near sited nerd with a pocket protector.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'm pretty sure that Canada and the US could recruit from club teams and face off in the finals. I tend to remember at some point they were going to pull womans hockey from the Olympics because its really Goliath and King Kong with a club versus a asthmatic near sited nerd with a pocket protector.

The only reason it's still an event is politics. Canada is desperate to keep a guaranteed medal in the games, so it solicits support from other countries in return for Canada supporting another cross-country skiing or ski jumping event so Norway or Finland has a good shot at another medal.

But even a thoroughly unscrupulous organisation like the IOC can't turn a blind eye to such an obvious lack of legitimate competition forever.

[polak]

Cross Country is miles ahead in popularity and parity than Womens Hockey.

Norway doesn't need Canada's help keeping one of the fundamental winter sports in the olympics.

A sport like Womens Ski Jumping is surrounded by politics but I don't know if the Nordic countries are big into that besides Norway. Mens Ski Jumping is dominated by central Europe with Germany, Poland and Austria running show usually.

[Northendzone]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

But even a thoroughly unscrupulous organisation like the IOC can't turn a blind eye to such an obvious lack of legitimate competition forever.

ha ha - just watch them.

at the end of the day I hope that this remains in the Olympics as it gives some hope to the girls that play a high level of hockey that there is a possibility for them to compete at an international level.

[Itse]

There's several things at play here.

First off, international hockey does make money, so it's fair that the players involved get some of that. However, that money is made mostly on mens side. Mens teams probably make too little in comparison to what they bring in, and I doubt the womens team brings anything close to that.

However, the whole point of there being national programs is to some extent to create a system where things that make money fund the things that don't make money, the idea being that this raises the popularity and quality of the sport in general.

When people start deciding what's important to fund and develop, you get into politics; and when you get to politics, you always have sexism.

There are tons of situations where women get paid less and womens initiatives funded less because of sexism. This isn't news in todays world, everyone knows this. No reason to think it's different in sports. The only way to really battle this issue is to make demands, make some noise and not be a pushover.

Are the demands of US womens NT fair? I have no clue. It's a complicated argument. However, they have the right to make noise and argue their case. I would also keep in mind that representing their country in international tournaments is pretty much the highest recognition these athletes can get in their sport. If they're willing to risk that chance, odds are they're not doing it lightly.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Didn't the Olympics bounce Women's Softball for the very same reason? Basically a showdown between Canada and the US each year?

I think it's coming back this time around, but imagine it will be the same results.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Itse

However, the whole point of there being national programs is to some extent to create a system where things that make money fund the things that don't make money, the idea being that this raises the popularity and quality of the sport in general.

Exactly. So if there's extra money to be spent on something, it seems to me that it makes sense to spend it on marketing (e.g. getting women's hockey on TV, promoting tournaments so that people actually watch), or into development programs for young girls to expand the talent base and interest base simultaneously. Not paying the national team to play.

I'm not opposed to paying a national team in principle or anything, it just seems to me that this is an area where there's very limited cash to go around and the mandate of the organization is to grow the women's side of the sport, and there are better ways to do that.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by polak

Cross Country is miles ahead in popularity and parity than Womens Hockey.

Norway doesn't need Canada's help keeping one of the fundamental winter sports in the olympics.

The point is that there's a lot of horse-trading around which sports and events get into the Olympics. Countries will trade their support for an event where they're not competitive in exchange for another country's support for a event they're likely to medal in. Canada and the U.S. want women's hockey in the Olympics. No other countries do. You can bet Canada has backed the introduction of other events into the Olympics purely as a quid pro quo.

Originally Posted by Itse

However, the whole point of there being national programs is to some extent to create a system where things that make money fund the things that don't make money, the idea being that this raises the popularity and quality of the sport in general.

When people start deciding what's important to fund and develop, you get into politics; and when you get to politics, you always have sexism.

Actually, I think the gender issue works in reverse here. If this was about lack of funding for another sport with as low popularity in the U.S. as women's hockey, say men's biathalon, we wouldn't be hearing about it. The only reason it's getting any play in the media is because it's been made into a gender issue.

[powderjunkie]

While I agree with the principles and sentiments of the women's arguments, they are in a weak bargaining position. USAH could send any women's college team and still win silver, they'd just get destroyed in the last game.

[Itse]

Btw, it's not completely true that there hasn't been any development in womens hockey. It's just that the development has been pretty slow and it's in two tiers. In the top tier, US has caught up to Canada, and in the second tier other countries have caught up to Finland.

In the 90's, before womens hockey was in the olympics, the medals were always Canada, US, Finland, in that order.

Then in the 2000's US started to beat Canada at times, and Sweden started to beat Finland. Other surprises started to happen. Russia got bronze in WC. Sweden got silver in 2006 olympics.

In the 10's, the battle for bronze has become a fourway between Finland, Sweden, Russia and Switzerland. The playoffs have also slowly become somewhat more competitive.

The differences in power change slowly in sports, because it takes a generation change to do it. So far the competition has toughened in each generation.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

Auston Matthews is a generational player and didn't have the marks to get into school even if it was necessary.

Tkatchuk and Jones are the sons of wealthy professional athletes and cared only about getting to the NHL. School is an after thought.

Jeremy Bracco actually showed up at Boston College and left (there are several rumors floating around, true or not, as to why that occurred).

Max Jones and Christina Fischer did just leave the program.

2014-2015 was an odd year for the USNTDP, so you picked up a good one for your point, but even then of the 33 players on that rosters, those are the only few that did it, most of which have extenuating circumstances.

Point remains though, without the USNTDP, there's a hell of a lot more of those kids in the CHL.

Why would USA hockey care if the players play in the CHL or NCAA? They don't get anything for sending players to either.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Actually, I think the gender issue works in reverse here. If this was about lack of funding for another sport with as low popularity in the U.S. as women's hockey, say men's biathalon, we wouldn't be hearing about it. The only reason it's getting any play in the media is because it's been made into a gender issue.

You're oversimplifying. If it was womens biathlon, nobody would give a toss. Or mens discus.

We're talking about this here because we're hockey fans and follow hockey news. (It wouldn't surprise me if this got more attention in Canada than US, simply because it's hockey news.) It's not like this is a huge story outside the hockey world.

Besides, hockey is a notable sport in the US. It might not be one of the top sports, but it's still big, with tens of millions of fans and hundreds of thousands of players, not to mention the billions of dollars involved.

There's also the added twist that the womens championship games are in US this year. That makes it a more interesting story.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by polak

You're glossing over the fact that they chose this life.

In this case, the sport doesn't make money. I think everyone here would agree that if Womens Hockey was as popular as Womens Tennis and was raking in cash that the women should be compensated as such. When their sole argument is "We don't make enough, look at how much they're spending on the boys!" and ignoring (or at least choosing not to address) all of the other factors that come into play, people are going to call them on their arguments.

People dismiss the complaints of high level athletes because they're not contributing much to society and no one feels sympathy for people choosing to live a life in sports over a more sustainable career. When you choose to focus your life around a game or art, be it Chess, Hockey, Soccer, Curling or Canadian Aussie Rules Football, you better be prepared for the reality of that choice. The reality that 99% of people will never be able to make a living doing just that. The "Pinnacle of my sport" "lifes work" argument doesn't hold water if there is no demand to watch your sport. Again, these people contribute nothing to society besides entertainment. If no one wants to watch you then you're S.O.L.

Frankly most athletes are extremely lucky to get any support at all. There's only a handful of sports that generate any real money.

So you shouldn't ask for more ever? Just take what happens to you always. If the government raises taxes 50%, you should just shut up and thank your lucky stars you don't live in some war torn or starving country?

They are asking for something. If USA hockey thinks its not worth it, then they say no we aren't doing this. Some players will quit and the team and sport will be worse off. But that is USA Hockey's decision to make and the players are within their rights to ask for it.

[polak]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Why would USA hockey care if the players play in the CHL or NCAA? They don't get anything for sending players to either.

NCAA Hockey is miles and miles ahead of CHL teams in terms of relevance to Americans. Hell, I bet some NCAA teams are more popular than some NHL teams in the states.

The more high end Americans play in the NCAA, the more exposure for hockey in the States. Very few casual fans would even know what the Memorial Cup is. The Frozen Four is on ESPN.

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

So you shouldn't ask for more ever? Just take what happens to you always. If the government raises taxes 50%, you should just shut up and thank your lucky stars you don't live in some war torn or starving country?

They are asking for something. If USA hockey thinks its not worth it, then they say no we aren't doing this. Some players will quit and the team and sport will be worse off. But that is USA Hockey's decision to make and the players are within their rights to ask for it.

Oh they're in their rights to ask, just like we're in our rights to ridicule their public stance.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Exactly. So if there's extra money to be spent on something, it seems to me that it makes sense to spend it on marketing (e.g. getting women's hockey on TV, promoting tournaments so that people actually watch), or into development programs for young girls to expand the talent base and interest base simultaneously. Not paying the national team to play.

I'm not opposed to paying a national team in principle or anything, it just seems to me that this is an area where there's very limited cash to go around and the mandate of the organization is to grow the women's side of the sport, and there are better ways to do that.

If they can't survive on what they get but are being asked to devote their full-time effort to training, it leaves them with little choice. All the marketing in the world won't help it if players can't afford to play.

[polak]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

If they can't survive on what they get but are being asked to devote their full-time effort to training, it leaves them with little choice. All the marketing in the world won't help it if players can't afford to play.

They are surviving just fine. Don't think any of them are starving without shelter here. They just want more money.

Also, all the marketing in the world would help them as it'd give the association more money to pay future teams.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

That its business as usual for Woman's international hockey?

Frankly I can't even be bother to watch any of it anymore because the non north american teams aren't getting any better, they're fairly horrible.

There's no struggle to get to the finals, so why is that interesting.

I'm pretty sure that Canada and the US could recruit from club teams and face off in the finals. I tend to remember at some point they were going to pull womans hockey from the Olympics because its really Goliath and King Kong with a club versus a asthmatic near sited nerd with a pocket protector.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. Some countries are making strides (Finland in particular) and are sending more players to the NCAA which will only help. The problem is Canada and the U.S. are getting better too so they are not closing the gap very quickly. In my opinion what needs to happen is some of the Canadian or American women need to go over and coach female hockey in Europe when they are finished playing here. The girls in Europe could benefit from more top end coaching and developement and frankly just the exposure to high calibre mentoring. That would do wonders to make the game better, but it will take time.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

If they can't survive on what they get but are being asked to devote their full-time effort to training, it leaves them with little choice. All the marketing in the world won't help it if players can't afford to play.

Do you feel the same about all Olympic sports? Should not the downhill skier, the curler, the bobsledder and hockey player all be compensated? Who should pay them?

Women's hockey doesn't generate the interest other sports can and do: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nwhl-...f-save-season/

Certain sports like female downhill skiers or tennis players make it work because the sport is popular. Life is not fair sometimes.