[News] Willie Desjardins named coach of Team Canada for 2018 Olympics

[Oil Stain]

No love for 36 year old Chris Lee?

Didn't see him listed on the potential roster? Do you member when he played on the Canadian WC team a few months ago and some talking heads were saying he was probably going to get an NHL contract.

His 5 minutes of fame sure didn't last very long.

[vilzeh]

Originally Posted by Freddy

To be honest, I'd be happy to cheer for a Canadian roster of any of these guys. I bet it's a lot more fun to play in such a high profile event without the pressure of being the best and being expected to win. Go Team Canada!

That's not how professional players work.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by MissTeeks

Team Canada has reached out to Iginla, Doan and Fisher:

https://twitter.com/tsn1040/status/890728845292314624

If Iggy and Doan don't land contracts, why would Canada want them on their team? Wouldn't you rather have guys who are in mid-season form instead of guys who haven't played a competitive match in almost a year?

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

If Iggy and Doan don't land contracts, why would Canada want them on their team? Wouldn't you rather have guys who are in mid-season form instead of guys who haven't played a competitive match in almost a year?

Because Iggy could get off the couch 3 years from now and still skate circles around Brandon Buck.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Freddy

To be honest, I'd be happy to cheer for a Canadian roster of any of these guys. I bet it's a lot more fun to play in such a high profile event without the pressure of being the best and being expected to win. Go Team Canada!

I do not get this viewpoint at all.

The Olympics is about 'stronger, higher, faster'. It is the pursuit of excellence. It is not about being 'super happy to be here' (though of course, anyone who is, should be).

Winning a gold medal is about being the best, being the champion of your sport for the next 4 years, not about putting a bunch of guys together that are going to try really hard but in the end, aren't very good.

If a bunch of nobodies are representing each country, what does it mean to win? Who cares? Your nobodies pulled out the victory over our nobodies? Good for you! Give everyone a nice baby blue participation medal and we can all sing kumbaya together!

[Gaudfather]

Originally Posted by Freddy

To be honest, I'd be happy to cheer for a Canadian roster of any of these guys. I bet it's a lot more fun to play in such a high profile event without the pressure of being the best and being expected to win. Go Team Canada!

To be honest I would rather see a roster composed of McDavid and Crosby and Price and Burns etc.. Still think nothing tops best on best. But that's just me.

[Fire]

I have to thank the NHL for not allowing players to go to the Olympic games. Not having to cheer for McDavid is worth it alone.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I do not get this viewpoint at all.

The Olympics is about 'stronger, higher, faster'. It is the pursuit of excellence. It is not about being 'super happy to be here' (though of course, anyone who is, should be).

Winning a gold medal is about being the best, being the champion of your sport for the next 4 years, not about putting a bunch of guys together that are going to try really hard but in the end, aren't very good.

If a bunch of nobodies are representing each country, what does it mean to win? Who cares? Your nobodies pulled out the victory over our nobodies? Good for you! Give everyone a nice baby blue participation medal and we can all sing kumbaya together!

I am old enough to remember when the Olympics was about the best amateur athletes in every sport. Medal-winners often (but not always) turned pro after establishing themselves on the Olympic stage. And you know what? People cared more about the Olympics then than they do now. It wasn't just watching a bunch of millionaires do the same things they do every other day for money.

To this day, the most famous event in the history of U.S. hockey is the ‘Miracle on Ice’ – and that team was, as you sneeringly put it, ‘a bunch of nobodies’. For the first and only time, the American people went nuts over hockey en masse. The Olympics today seldom or never get that kind of mass emotional buy-in. But according to your lights, Lake Placid was a nothing event because the pros weren't there, and the U.S. team should have been given a baby blue participation medal and a pat on the head and sent home, because nobody cared.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I am old enough to remember when the Olympics was about the best amateur athletes in every sport. Medal-winners often (but not always) turned pro after establishing themselves on the Olympic stage. And you know what? People cared more about the Olympics then than they do now. It wasn't just watching a bunch of millionaires do the same things they do every other day for money.

To this day, the most famous event in the history of U.S. hockey is the ‘Miracle on Ice’ – and that team was, as you sneeringly put it, ‘a bunch of nobodies’. For the first and only time, the American people went nuts over hockey en masse. The Olympics today seldom or never get that kind of mass emotional buy-in. But according to your lights, Lake Placid was a nothing event because the pros weren't there, and the U.S. team should have been given a baby blue participation medal and a pat on the head and sent home, because nobody cared.

As to the bold, do you have anything to back that up, or are you just projecting your own opinion?

And even if it's true, it's irrelevant. Because the only thing that matters now is what people today want to watch. And from every poll I've seen, most people want to watch the best.

Also, the Olympics were never about amateur athletes. That was a crock of #### from the moment they modern Olympics were launched.

And the Miracle on Ice was a great story, but so what? One great story out of 50 wasted years. Super.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

As to the bold, do you have anything to back that up, or are you just projecting your own opinion?

First: There was genuine competition among cities to host the Olympics. Now, almost nobody is interested except third-world kleptocracies trying to make a PR splash.

Second: I gave you an example of a kind of enthusiasm that never, and I mean never, has happened in an Olympic team sport where professionals were openly allowed to compete.

And even if it's true, it's irrelevant. Because the only thing that matters now is what people today want to watch. And from every poll I've seen, most people want to watch the best.

I suspect a lot of people answer that way in the poll because they're too young to remember anything else. It's hard to understand the merits of something you've never seen and never been allowed to see.

Also, the Olympics were never about amateur athletes. That was a crock of #### from the moment they modern Olympics were launched.

You're dead wrong about that. Athletes were barred from the Olympics for taking so much as one single dollar in payment for their athletic performances.

The crock was the U.S.S.R. and other totalitarian countries gaming the system by sending professional athletes to the Games, and then pretending that they were being paid to serve in the armed forces. Of course, none of those athletes ever did any real military service; their duty was to train and perform in athletic events year-round. The solution to that should have been to ban those countries from the Olympics outright, not to make cheating legal.

And the Miracle on Ice was a great story, but so what? One great story out of 50 wasted years. Super.

You're saying that the entire Olympic movement was a crock of #### until they admitted pro athletes in the 1990s. You're wrong.

[GGG]

2010 Vancouver says hi

[Vulcan]

The Yanks gamed the system as well with their corrupt college system.

The idea of making the Olympics amateur was to keep it for the elite who could afford to train and compete while keeping the common riff-raff out of it.

The reason most cities don't want the Olympics is because it has become too expensive partly because of the greed and corruptness of the of the people running it.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

The Yanks gamed the system as well with their corrupt college system.

That's true; though that was more about the colleges gaming the system to try to beat each other. The U.S. Olympic program definitely benefited from the corruption, but the corruption would still have been there without it.

The idea of making the Olympics amateur was to keep it for the elite who could afford to train and compete while keeping the common riff-raff out of it.

Yup. It was never intended to be about the best athletes – only the athletes from the best families. Yet it was the most famous sporting event in the world for more than eighty years before the rules were changed to let in professionals. Which kind of goes against Enoch's contention that the Olympics would not draw an audience without the pros.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

First: There was genuine competition among cities to host the Olympics. Now, almost nobody is interested except third-world kleptocracies trying to make a PR splash.

Second: I gave you an example of a kind of enthusiasm that never, and I mean never, has happened in an Olympic team sport where professionals were openly allowed to compete.



I suspect a lot of people answer that way in the poll because they're too young to remember anything else. It's hard to understand the merits of something you've never seen and never been allowed to see.



You're dead wrong about that. Athletes were barred from the Olympics for taking so much as one single dollar in payment for their athletic performances.

The crock was the U.S.S.R. and other totalitarian countries gaming the system by sending professional athletes to the Games, and then pretending that they were being paid to serve in the armed forces. Of course, none of those athletes ever did any real military service; their duty was to train and perform in athletic events year-round. The solution to that should have been to ban those countries from the Olympics outright, not to make cheating legal.



You're saying that the entire Olympic movement was a crock of #### until they admitted pro athletes in the 1990s. You're wrong.

The bold is the only thing I will bother replying to, as these arguments are old.

But that is laughably misleading and naive.

Bruce Jenner, for instance, earned a salary significantly in the six digits (if I remember correctly, it was $750k) as an amateur, while training for the Olympics.

If you want to hold on to the technicality that he didn't earn that for competing, knock yourself out. But the only reason he did earn that salary was that he was expected to be the Olympic decathlon champion.

Many Olympians earned significant wealth while training. The founder of the games, Pierre de Coubertin, was an aristiocrat and a Baron, and many believe the reason he wanted only amateurs was in order to keep the games to the upper class.

The very definition of amateur has been a debated and unsettled item since the initial creation of the games. And many scholars argue that the original Greek athletes were in fact professionals (though that too is debatable).

The whole thing is such an empty argument.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The bold is the only thing I will bother replying to, as these arguments are old.

And have not been answered by you. You don't concede graciously, but I see that you do, nevertheless, concede.

[Enoch Root]

wow

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

So, this is basically going to be the Spengler cup with fewer ads, then, huh?

Actually, I guess those guys are professionals at the end of the day... so, lower quality hockey than that, then.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

So, this is basically going to be the Spengler cup with fewer ads, then, huh?

Right, because that's all the Olympics were before the 1990s.

You're hopeless.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I have no memory of Olympic Hockey before the 1990's, but when I think "third tier / washed up players with a Canadian jersey on in a tournament where I'm familiar with maybe a couple of guys on each squad", I think Spengler Cup. So, again, without the ads, what makes this a different viewing experience? Why should I be more invested in it?

[_Q_]

If they're not going to allow professionals, I think it would have been cool if Hockey Canada ran a nation wide tournament to find the best beer league team that would go on to represent Canada. That would be a team I could get behind.