Quote:
Originally Posted by Matty81
I don't know that anyone is going to be able to provide data to back up either point of view. But I find it hard to believe or argue that anybody could believe participation in the Olympics over the last 20 years hasn't exposed a lot of people to hockey who wouldn't otherwise know it exists.
This olympics will definitely create new fans in South Korea and Asia, how many is impossible to tell right now but it certainly won't lose hockey any fans.
Not to mention the impact it has on existing markets. Lots of people in Canada who aren't super into the NHL were drawn more into hockey by Crosby's golden goal. And the argument that it might hurt the NHL is total nonsense. If one team doesn't win because of an injury, another market will, it's a zero sum game.
Ultimately, it doesn't have to be the Olympics even, but a best on best international tournament with broad distribution (that isn't mickey mouse like the god awful world cup) draws people who aren't followers of the NHL in.
Like the WBC baseball, if owners are left to own that tournament, they will ensure it is second priority to their own money making endeavor and looks and is treated badly relative to the stanley cup finals, which is too bad.
|
But do you not think that's the evaluation the NHL has made? That is - if indeed Olympics participation has shown to be an important driver of growth for the NHL, then they would happily make the trade off between what they risk/lose from pausing their season with participation. The fact they aren't going tells me they've made that evaluation and the decision reflects what they concluded.
And just because they don't go to this one, doesn't mean they don't go to another one. The geography just isn't compelling.
I know if I was an owner I wouldn't vote to go.