Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
As long as we're playing the logical fallacy game, you're arguing - among others - appeal to emotion.
And the empirical evidence I refer to is the reams of data the NHL will have collected on what impact the Olympics has on NHL TV viewership, ticket sales, merchandise sales, fan engagement, etc. Both month to month within a season and comparative in seasons before, during and after Olympic years.
There had been rumblings for *years* about how little value the governors saw in the proposition. Even before the Vancouver Olympics, there was some speculation that 2010 might end up the last time the NHL went - and that was before John Tavares' injury raised the risk profile substantially from their perspective.
|
While this is true, I do think that even in the world of pro sports there is still room for emotions, and I think there is ultimately a deep desire in the hockey world to have a true best-on-best international tournament, and the very "meh" reception the NHL's IMO somewhat fumbled attempt at creating their own World Cup I think showed that the Olympics can offer something people want. While the league itself has likely relatively little to gain, at the end of the day the owners call the shots, and owning a sports team is about a lot of things, not just winning the Stanley Cup or making profit.
I wouldn't be surprised if behind the scenes quite a few team owners are thinking "man, I really want to see Olympic hockey like it was in Vancouver."
Of course the NHL has lawyers and managers to separate the emotions from negotiations, and their side has all the cards, and they will want money out of it this time. Still, I don't think you can completely discount the irrational appeal of the Olympics from the discussion.