Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
There have actually been three issues raised here around an end to NHL participation in the Olympics:
Will top players abandon the NHL to play in the Olympics? I don't think this will happen. Ovechkin's threat was because the Olympics are in the Russia. Who's going to walk out on their NHL team to play in an Olympics in France or Norway?
Will there be any comparable best-on-best tournament for hockey fans to enjoy? I believe a World Cup would actually be a better-quality hockey tournament for hockey fans to watch.
Will the sport of hockey lose exposure to potential new fans? Yes, I think it would. But I do find it interesting how a great many hockey fans in Canada sneer at Bettman's attempts to grow the NHL in the U.S. sunbelt. Most of the people who tune in to Olympic hockey aren't any more likely to become NHL fans than that proverbial Nascar fan in Atlanta.
|
1) this is not an argument against the Olympics
2) how would it be better? (same players) I think it would be the same, except that it wouldn't have the Olympic prestige, so marginally worse
3) What is your point here? The Olympics increase exposure and bring in new fans. A world cup would not bring in any. Yes, most Olympic watchers won't become fans, but some will. Compare that to a World Cup where those same people wouldn't be watching at all, so it's
guaranteed that they won't become fans.
I find this whole debate fascinating. Basically, the argument for a World Cup instead of the Olympics is that the Olympics don't really accomplish anything so what's the point? Let's just have a tournament that doesn't accomplish anything. That is just silly. The Olympics are a
massive boost to
every sport that is there. Pretending that it isn't is simply ignoring the truth.
How many Lugers do you think there would be without the Olympics?