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.
|
You really believe the NHL collects reams of data on the popularity of hockey in markets outside of North America? I haven't heard of any of it, if they have. And remember the world is certainly different than in the 1990's and 200's in terms of accessibility.
I knew someone would bring up the injury risk. So one injury of note in 5 Olympics. Does it actually make a difference whether Tavares is injured in game 52 of the regular season vs. the Olympics? Isn't the impact to the NHL the same?
I believe you're saying that the NHL doesn't see sufficient value in order to participate in the Games. You don't know exactly what data and information they are using to come to this conclusion (how could anyone), but you trust in their decision making process. While I agree with your take on the NHL's position, I don't have the same confidence in their ability to see the big picture. Hockey will likely never have the same appeal of games like soccer or basketball but that doesn't mean the NHL shouldn't be trying to capitalize on global growth opportunities in the most cost efficient way possible.
So in the limited data I have available to me, I can't really support the NHL's perspective on this.