[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Why two or three decades?

I thought that was obvious. The NHL sent its players to the Olympics for two decades, and then stopped. It seems they were either willfully ignorant of all the growth in their sport over that time; or they determined that it was not valuable enough on its own to keep sending their players; or there just wasn't much growth tied to Olympic participation at all.

And how are you calculating the cost of participating in the Olympics? And the potential return? I don't see how you are concluding it is a terrible investment strategy with zero data. All I am arguing is the logic and appeal of growing the sport. Don't you see all pro sports making investments in this?

You're right. I don't have any data—none of us do except perhaps the NHL and the IOC. I am inferring from the actions of both of these parties that the NHL is dissatisfied with the current investment, and wants a better deal. It seems like a perfectly reasonable expectation to me.

It is not a long game theory. Are you saying there are no economic benefits to the NHL in seeing the sport of hockey grow in popularity? How are you measuring the results over the last 20 years?

No. I am saying that we know nothing about the economic benifits of Olympic participation from the past 20 years beyond the fact that the BoG has been vocally dissatisfied with them for a fairly long time. I am saying that—at best—exposure ON ITS OWN, and the growth of the game ON ITS OWN are quite reasonably not worth enough to the League to keep sending their players to the Olympics without any sort of tangible, immediate compensation. At worst, these are idealistic buzzwords. We don't know that the NHL does not benefit from participation any more than we know that they do. I see a lot of hand waving about kids buying Ovechkin jerseys and video games without any evidence to support this assertion.

This started with you asking what benefit there was to NHL participation in the Olympics. I remain perplexed that you don't acknowledge any.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think if this were true, or that if the League believed that Olympic exposure ON ITS OWN were worth anything close to what you speculate, then they would be a MUCH more enthusiastic participant.

After 20 years and five Olympic games it strikes me as obvious that exposure is most definitely not all that.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Like I said, EXPOSURE IS NOT WORTH ENOUGH to the NHL for them to happily continue sending their players to the Games every four years without further compensation.

I have acknowledged that there is seemingly some benefit, but I have consistently maintained that it is quite plausibly inconsequential or even imagined.

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I don't recall saying that the NHL should roll over and give the IOC whatever they want. What I have consistently stated is that it is to the NHL's advantage to see the popularity of the sport grow. When something is in both parties interests, you negotiate in good faith to come to a satisfactory conclusion. That is what I believe the NHL should attempt to do.

Right. So we agree. Is that not exactly what the League is presently doing? After gifting their players and their schedule to the IOC in exchange for nothing more than hopes of exposure and growth, they have said that they want a lot more from the IOC. It's a negotiation.