[News] NHL players will not participate in 2018 Olympics?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

Can you please explain how the Olympics can be the best thing for the sport, but not the NHL? Bettman does everything in his power to have expansion teams in the US to build the popularity amongst markets that currently don't have regular hockey coverage. The Olympics is doing that for free.

Two misconceptions of yours require addressing:
1. The league's mandate to expand across the US predated Bettman by several years. (in fact, if you want to get right down to it, it predated Bettman by about 25 years).
2. As I have noted above, this is not 'free' publicity for the NHL. The NHL is not paying out of pocket to have the Olympics promote the sport of hockey, no. But this is an interruption to their business, and that costs. The risk of injury costs. The inability to use coverage or highlights costs. The ridiculous start time of the games dramatically stunts whatever ancillary benefit exists.

Once again, you are trying to take your emotional want as a fan and extrapolate it into the business realm. It doesn't work that way. And most of the emotional impact is driven by the desire for a best-on-best tournament. A revived World Cup takes care of that need easily. It would also take away most of the above concerns while resulting in a tangible financial benefit for both the owners and players - not to mention the federations of the participating nations.

If the sport of hockey grows than of course the best league in hockey will grow. These owners will just be dead by the time that happens and would rather get paid for the next two weeks.

And now you are taking your emotional argument and transforming it into an ad hominem attack. That is not an argument that will sway me, and it certainly won't sway anyone in the NHL.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by strombad

Expand.

Exorbitant costs, pathetic facilities, ridiculous political agendas, rampant corruption, excessive consumerism, unbridled use of performance enhancing drugs, ambiguous regulations and excessive delusions of grandeur and national self-importance.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Locke

Exorbitant costs, pathetic facilities, ridiculous political agendas, rampant corruption, excessive consumerism, unbridled use of performance enhancing drugs, ambiguous regulations and excessive delusions of grandeur and national self-importance.

Well yes, but beside all that....

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Locke

Exorbitant costs, pathetic facilities, ridiculous political agendas, rampant corruption, excessive consumerism, unbridled use of performance enhancing drugs, ambiguous regulations and excessive delusions of grandeur and national self-importance.

You could just say "sports". It's shorter.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Locke

Exorbitant costs, pathetic facilities, ridiculous political agendas, rampant corruption, excessive consumerism, unbridled use of performance enhancing drugs, ambiguous regulations and excessive delusions of grandeur and national self-importance.

I can't tell if your problem is that you think the very inception of the Olympics was a mistake, or you just don't like organised sport.

The Olympics are what they are, and the modern Olympics have always been what they are.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by strombad

I can't tell if your problem is that you think the very inception of the Olympics was a mistake, or you just don't like organised sport.

The Olympics are what they are, and the modern Olympics have always been what they are.

Yes. And I dont care. At all. I love organized sports. Key term there, 'organized.'

I really couldnt care less about the Olympics. I watch the Olympics for hockey. I watch the summer Olympics for soccer. Because I like Hockey. And Soccer.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Two misconceptions of yours require addressing:
1. The league's mandate to expand across the US predated Bettman by several years. (in fact, if you want to get right down to it, it predated Bettman by about 25 years).
2. As I have noted above, this is not 'free' publicity for the NHL. The NHL is not paying out of pocket to have the Olympics promote the sport of hockey, no. But this is an interruption to their business, and that costs. The risk of injury costs. The inability to use coverage or highlights costs. The ridiculous start time of the games dramatically stunts whatever ancillary benefit exists.

Once again, you are trying to take your emotional want as a fan and extrapolate it into the business realm. It doesn't work that way. And most of the emotional impact is driven by the desire for a best-on-best tournament. A revived World Cup takes care of that need easily. It would also take away most of the above concerns while resulting in a tangible financial benefit for both the owners and players - not to mention the federations of the participating nations.



And now you are taking your emotional argument and transforming it into an ad hominem attack. That is not an argument that will sway me, and it certainly won't sway anyone in the NHL.

Thanks for taking time out of your day in an attempt to prove me wrong.


1.It's well known that Bettman was pushing for the Atlanta franchise to stay in the US. Seattle was talked about a lot. It's no secret that they'd rather have more American teams as they know Canadians will have access to and watch hockey across the country. How else do you explain the Phoenix Coyotes franchise (owned by the NHL) remaining in Phoenix? They are doing what they can to grow the sport in the US.

2. Got me on a technicality there.. IMO what they're gaining long term far exceeds what they lose short term. By the way the majority of people (especially sports fans) have this sweet invention called a PVR.

Why is a World Cup so much different? There's still the risk of injury. There's already a best on best tournament called the Olympics. The World Cup is for HOCKEY so only HOCKEY fans will be watching opposed to the worldwide coverage/involvement of the Olympics. This does very little to grow the sport which has been my point all along.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Locke

Yes. And I dont care. At all. I love organized sports. Key term there, 'organized.'



I really couldnt care less about the Olympics. I watch the Olympics for hockey. I watch the summer Olympics for soccer. Because I like Hockey. And Soccer.

That's fine. Your disinterest seems to manifest itself in negative and critical ways, but that's your bag.

[PeteMoss]

There's proof in this very thread (landshark becoming an NHL fan) that being the Olympics helps the NHL. There's nothing emotional about that no matter how many times it is repeated.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

1.It's well known that Bettman was pushing for the Atlanta franchise to stay in the US. Seattle was talked about a lot. It's no secret that they'd rather have more American teams as they know Canadians will have access to and watch hockey across the country. How else do you explain the Phoenix Coyotes franchise (owned by the NHL) remaining in Phoenix? They are doing what they can to grow the sport in the US.

Bettman certainly did push to have the Thrashers remain in Atlanta if at all possible. When it became clear that nobody was willing to step up and operate a team in Atlanta, the franchise relocated quickly and easily to Winnipeg. The difference Phoenix has is that it always had groups showing interest in operating a team in that market.

2. Got me on a technicality there.. IMO what they're gaining long term far exceeds what they lose short term. By the way the majority of people (especially sports fans) have this sweet invention called a PVR.

In your condescension, you perhaps missed the fact that sports operates as an outlier in the television landscape because most people vastly prefer watching the games live vs. recorded. This is one of the reasons why sports networks can command massive carriage fees on cable channels, and why they can pay rather silly sums of money for rights. Sporting telecasts are one of the last areas of television where a somewhat 'captive audience' exists. That means no fast forwarding of commercials which is something advertisers will pay more for.

Why is a World Cup so much different? There's still the risk of injury. There's already a best on best tournament called the Olympics. The World Cup is for HOCKEY so only HOCKEY fans will be watching opposed to the worldwide coverage/involvement of the Olympics. This does very little to grow the sport which has been my point all along.

Once again, it isn't the NHL's mandate to grow the sport. Its mandate is to grow its business. There are tradeoffs, absolutely. Fewer people are likely to watch a WCH than a best-on-best Olympics. But in return, the NHL can schedule the tournament in a way that does not interfere with its season. The NHL retains full marketing rights to the event. The NHL earns the revenue, which in turn is split with the players association.

From a business perspective, this is a no-brainer for the NHL. It is up to the IIHF and IOC to step up and offer something that changes the equation.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Locke

Exorbitant costs, pathetic facilities, ridiculous political agendas, rampant corruption, excessive consumerism, unbridled use of performance enhancing drugs, ambiguous regulations and excessive delusions of grandeur and national self-importance.

And the participation of NHL players mitigates this how? If you dislike the Olympics that much, its' safe to assume you'd be happier with a revival of the World Cup of Hockey. The nice things about a WCH scenario, for hardcore fans, is that you not only get full NHL seasons without a break-up, and a best-on-best tournament in the summer, when there's otherwise no hockey, but you still have an Olympic hockey tournament to watch. Even without NHLers it's still organized, international hockey on a global stage, and most guys here will still tune in to watch and cheer.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Bettman certainly did push to have the Thrashers remain in Atlanta if at all possible. When it became clear that nobody was willing to step up and operate a team in Atlanta, the franchise relocated quickly and easily to Winnipeg. The difference Phoenix has is that it always had groups showing interest in operating a team in that market.

You ignored the fact he wanted the Thrashers to relocate to another American city.

In your condescension, you perhaps missed the fact that sports operates as an outlier in the television landscape because most people vastly prefer watching the games live vs. recorded. This is one of the reasons why sports networks can command massive carriage fees on cable channels, and why they can pay rather silly sums of money for rights. Sporting telecasts are one of the last areas of television where a somewhat 'captive audience' exists. That means no fast forwarding of commercials which is something advertisers will pay more for.

More than happy to be condescending to someone with a pompous 'I know best' attitude

Once again, it isn't the NHL's mandate to grow the sport. Its mandate is to grow its business. There are tradeoffs, absolutely. Fewer people are likely to watch a WCH than a best-on-best Olympics. But in return, the NHL can schedule the tournament in a way that does not interfere with its season. The NHL retains full marketing rights to the event. The NHL earns the revenue, which in turn is split with the players association.

Once again growing the sport is growing the business.. If the Olympics were every year then yes lets just have a world cup, but it's every 4 years. The world cup was every year which means more chance for injury playing a non-nhl game.

From a business perspective, this is a no-brainer for the NHL. It is up to the IIHF and IOC to step up and offer something that changes the equation.

The NHL should hire you as a business analyst, whoevers in charge now is costing them a lot of money allowing NHLers to participate in a tournament they've dreamed of being a part of since childhood.

Answers in bold.

[Zarley]

I think that as long as NBC holds the rights for both the Olympics and the NHL, there's a good chance that we will see NHL participation.

[landshark]

Originally Posted by Zarley

I think that as long as NBC holds the rights for both the Olympics and the NHL, there's a good chance that we will see NHL participation.

That's a really good pint that I didn't even think of...

I wonder if there is some requirement in the NBC/NHL contract about Olympic participation... or adjustment if participation stops.

[GirlySports]

if the olympics compensated teams which in turn compensated players cause they get half of everything this would all be moot.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by landshark

That's a really good pint that I didn't even think of...

I wonder if there is some requirement in the NBC/NHL contract about Olympic participation... or adjustment if participation stops.

I doubt it because NBC doesn't have olympics rights for the duration of the 10 years I don't think. NBC would have to re-bid for the olympics.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

They should make it like soccer. Have an age limit of 23 with one or two veteran spots per team.

I think it would be a much more interesting tournament and the NHL season could conceivably carry on.

Does Olympic soccer has as much prestige as the World Cup? I don't watch soccer so I honestly have no idea.

If Olympic soccer was unrestricted, would it have as much/more prestige as the World Cup?

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Teh_Bandwagoner

Does Olympic soccer has as much prestige as the World Cup? I don't watch soccer so I honestly have no idea.

If Olympic soccer was unrestricted, would it have as much/more prestige as the World Cup?

no it doesn't, not even close

[Joborule]

It doesn't have the prestige, because it's not the best of the best; but soccer does have a major soccer tournament every two years. The FIFA World Cup, and the UFEA Euro Cup (Same year as Summer Olympics). It's not the same since the two events are different in which teams can participate obviously, but the top European clubs (the ones most people want to see) would most likely qualify for both of them anyway.

[stemit14]

If the Olympics would stop being so head strong about controlling the content, the NHL might be more willing to keep letting players go to the Olympics. The Olympics should allow the NHL to use the footage of the Olympic Games to promote the players from their league. They should allow players to have their NHL team logo as a shoulder patch or something. Things like this would make the Olympics into more of a platform for the NHL to showcase their players and their league.

As Canadians, we would turn into the underdogs of the Olympic tournament if the KHL and euro leagues sent their players while the Canadians sent amateurs.