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

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Perhaps ironically, Olympic gold is the pinnacle for hockey only because NHL players participate. Prior to 1998, I would argue the Canada Cup was the pinnacle for hockey. And if all goes according to the NHL's plan, the World Cup will be so in the future.

Ultimately, the NHL has to focus on its own business, and not the overall state of the sport. It will be incumbent on the IIHF to convince the NHL that remaining in the Olympics is good business for the NHL.

See I would argue that it's the pinnacle because the BEST players participate. Canada and the US are the only rosters with all NHL players, even though Sweden, Finland, and possibly a couple others could have taken all NHL rosters as well. The tournament is best on best, it just so happens that a lot of the best hockey players play in the NHL. Yes, it hasn't been all that long that they've allowed NHL players to participate, but that doesn't make it less awesome.

What you're forgetting about in your post is the players. While the NHL is obviously concerned with their business, players are concerned with playing. And, as highly driven competitive athletes, they want to showcase themselves along side/against the best. I was pretty young in '98, but I really don't remember Olympic hockey getting the attention it has since. And I also don't recall the Winter Olympics in general getting the attention it has since. The best hockey players participating I think has been a huge boost to the viewership for the Winter Games (along with addition of extreme sports like snowboarding). You can see it in here, I would bet a lot of older posters are used to seeing the Winter Games fall far below the Summer Games in viewership, but as we can see above, they're not that far off. I think hockey has a lot to do with that.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I honestly don't think the average non-fan can tell the difference between NHL quality play and European professional or even college play. There will always be hockey at the Winter Olympics. The question is what added attraction do NHL players bring for viewers who aren't already hockey fans. Hockey was already the most popular event at the Winter Olympics before NHL players were involved.

Except for figure skating, that is more popular than hockey at the Olympics

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Yeah, good business for the NHL and the NHLPA. If I remember correctly the Canada Cup was supposed to help fill the coffers of their pension plan.

I don't know why they got rid of the Canada Cup. Why couldn't they have had them both and staggered them. Olympics in Feb 98, 02, 06, 10, 14 etcc.. World Cup in Sept 96, 00, 04, 08, 12, 16 etc..

It would be like soccer's world cup and euros.

BTW Snyder is an idiot. He's campaigning against players not going and today he's bitching about Giroux not being on Team Canada. It's this type of leadership that drives the NHL into the ground.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

I'm confused as to why having an Olympic break affects NHL profits in any way. It's not like the seasons are shorter, it's the same number of games. If anything this would cause an increased attendance and viewing for games after the break as every hockey fan has gone 2-3 weeks without seeing their team play and is starved for NHL hockey (in a good way).

Have you heard of any other hockey leagues in Europe complaining about their players being taken to play in the biggest hockey tournament in the world? I'm thinking not, because they understand that the Olympics are a big deal for the sport. The NHL earns it's revenue from fans and the majority of fans want to see Olympic hockey. I'd say all fans but some seem to have their own personal agenda (e.g watching lesser/junior hockey players play in the Olympics).

[getbak]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

BTW Snyder is an idiot. He's campaigning against players not going and today he's bitching about Giroux not being on Team Canada.

That made me laugh about this whole situation. Snider doesn't want to send the players over, yet he's been the most vocal owner about one of his players not getting chosen to play.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

I'm confused as to why having an Olympic break affects NHL profits in any way. It's not like the seasons are shorter, it's the same number of games. If anything this would cause an increased attendance and viewing for games after the break as every hockey fan has gone 2-3 weeks without seeing their team play and is starved for NHL hockey (in a good way).

Have you heard of any other hockey leagues in Europe complaining about their players being taken to play in the biggest hockey tournament in the world? I'm thinking not, because they understand that the Olympics are a big deal for the sport. The NHL earns it's revenue from fans and the majority of fans want to see Olympic hockey. I'd say all fans but some seem to have their own personal agenda (e.g watching lesser/junior hockey players play in the Olympics).

I heard on the radio this morning that the complaints are mostly from American owners, who look at February as a time where they can attract the more casual fans. This is the time right after the NFL season ends and before March Madness begins.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

The NHL earns it's revenue from fans and the majority of fans want to see Olympic hockey. I'd say all fans but some seem to have their own personal agenda (e.g watching lesser/junior hockey players play in the Olympics).

The NHL is a business, and considering the two lockouts in the last decade, a business that doesn't much care what fans think so long as the money keeps rolling in. And regardless, World Cup hockey is just as entertaining for fans as Olympics hockey. Personally, the 87 Canada Cup was the best international hockey competition I've watched.

[mister__big]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

I'm confused as to why having an Olympic break affects NHL profits in any way.

It doesn't affect their profits. That's the problem the owners have. They are unhappy that they have to send their players overseas and shut down their business for 2 weeks for zero benefit, while creating the possibility that their star players may get injured during the Olympics (which would then directly affect their profits if their team misses the playoffs due to the injury).

If the owners were handsomely compensated for sending their players, we wouldn't be having this conversation since they would happily send their players in a heartbeat.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by mister__big

It doesn't affect their profits. That's the problem the owners have. They are unhappy that they have to send their players overseas and shut down their business for 2 weeks for zero benefit, while creating the possibility that their star players may get injured during the Olympics (which would then directly affect their profits if their team misses the playoffs due to the injury).

If the owners were handsomely compensated for sending their players, we wouldn't be having this conversation since they would happily send their players in a heartbeat.

That sounds somewhat reasonable on the injury front, however I don't recall this being much of an issue as international hockey is known to be less physical than the NHL. However this gives injured players a couple weeks to get healthy just before the trade deadline and push for the playoffs begins. Many players are nursing some sort of Ailment and it allows them to return to 100%.

And yes there might be 2 weeks without revenue coming in, but with the condensed schedule they should be looking at the same overall revenue by years end. Doesn't seem like a solid enough argument for the owners to justify this.

[flamesfan1297]

Ed Snider is 81 years old,Lots can change in 4 years

[landshark]

I hope the NHL knows what they are doing...

It was the 1980 Olympics that brought hockey to my attention. Back then, there was no hockey on TV where I lived. I watched ALL of the hockey coverage as did everyone on our new floor hockey team that was put together by my easterner college roommate. He taught us all how to play.

But there was still no hockey on TV. The Sharks came around in 1992, but was only available to me via UHF 100mi away. Most of the time, I couldn't see much.

It was the 1998 Olympics that gave me my first glimpse of NHL players at the top of their game. I watched the whole tournament and was absolutely smitten with the game.

That was why I finally decided that I needed cable TV (not a big fan of TV in general - refused to PAY for it for the longest time) so I could watch the Sharks.

If not for the olympics, I wouldn't be a fan of the NHL today.

I talked to a guy from Alabama a couple of years ago. He was a football fan ONLY for his whole life, but he watched the 2010 tournament and 'got it'. Instant hockey fan.

I really understand the NHL's argument, but I don't think the game is done growing yet. The olympics is costly for them, but I think it's still valuable to the growth of the league.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by landshark

I really understand the NHL's argument, but I don't think the game is done growing yet. The olympics is costly for them, but I think it's still valuable to the growth of the league.

The issue is that airing highlights of games in prime time because the contests themselves are played in the middle of the night doesn't help grow the NHL in the locations that matter to it - North America.

And that creates the primary conflict. The NHL is being asked to shut down for three weeks at a time when US attendance tends to rise, take the risk that its best players could be hurt in someone else's tournament and have limited to no rights to rebroadcast even highlights. It's not a good deal for the NHL and it shouldn't be a surprise the league isn't terribly interested in continuing with this arrangement.

A World Cup, on the other hand, can be played on the NHL's own schedule, will still draw fans and can be tailored to a North American audience. The league would earn the revenues and would retain full rights to the event.

[Flame19,289]

Maybe the IOC should consider moving Ice Hockey back to the Summer Games like it used to be.

Probably too soon to have it happen in Rio, but hockey in Tokyo in 2020 should be feasible.

[landshark]

I see your points, but the NHL wants out of ALL future olympics - not just the ones in inconvenient timezones. The World Cup would satisfy my desire to see the best playing the best, but non-hockey fans will not see one moment of it. Being part of something much larger (the Olympics), non fans might just bump into hockey accidentally.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The issue is that airing highlights of games in prime time because the contests themselves are played in the middle of the night doesn't help grow the NHL in the locations that matter to it - North America.

And that creates the primary conflict. The NHL is being asked to shut down for three weeks at a time when US attendance tends to rise, take the risk that its best players could be hurt in someone else's tournament and have limited to no rights to rebroadcast even highlights. It's not a good deal for the NHL and it shouldn't be a surprise the league isn't terribly interested in continuing with this arrangement.

A World Cup, on the other hand, can be played on the NHL's own schedule, will still draw fans and can be tailored to a North American audience. The league would earn the revenues and would retain full rights to the event.

[GirlySports]

Seems both arguments above are correct. They should be in both olympics and world cup.

[Flames89]

It is just because owners are greedy. Make the Olympic year have less games, and it won't be so disruptive.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Flames89

It is just because owners are greedy. Make the Olympic year have less games, and it won't be so disruptive.

Tell the players that they'll be getting a paycut because of less games in an Olympic year and we'll see who's greedy.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Canadians overestimate how big the Winter Olympics are in the U.S. and most of the rest of the world. They get a fraction of the viewership of the Summer Olympics. In the U.S., a small proportion of the female TV audience will tune in to watch the figure skating, and a fraction of the male audience will tune in to watch hockey. And as you note yourself, they tuned in back in 1980 when there weren't NHLers playing. They'll tune in again when it's not NHL players. In fact, most TV viewers in the U.S. won't know the difference - they'll just cheer for some guys wearing the a U.S. uniform, the same way they cheer for a volleyball team wearing a U.S. uniform.

So I don't think the audience of casual fans who will turn away from Olympic hockey with no NHLers is all that large. And the hardcore fans will tune in to a World Cup.

So much wrong in this post. Someone already posted some numbers (as opposed to your personal, anecdotal opinion), so I can skip that.

But I also wanted to point out that in 1980, no US network carried the hockey live. Americans close to the border tuned in to the CBC to watch (And were very appreciative of the coverage).

Olympics generates viewership - attempting to argue otherwise is simply ignoring the facts. That viewership generates interest and growth in the sport.

Having NHLers play adds an element of stardom and name recognition. If anyone can present numbers that show that viewership was the same in the US without guys like Kane and Parise, please do so, I would love to see them. But there aren't any because the viewership continues to grow and the numbers are astronomically higher than NHL viewership in the States.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by mister__big

It doesn't affect their profits. That's the problem the owners have. They are unhappy that they have to send their players overseas and shut down their business for 2 weeks for zero benefit, while creating the possibility that their star players may get injured during the Olympics (which would then directly affect their profits if their team misses the playoffs due to the injury).

If the owners were handsomely compensated for sending their players, we wouldn't be having this conversation since they would happily send their players in a heartbeat.

Not just that, but the condensed schedule because of the Olympics also attributes to more injuries.

Quite frankly if the players are going to go they should be compensated.

[scotty2hotty]

Easy solution ...

Let players wear a small patch with their NHL logo somewhere on the jersey. Similar to All-Star unis.

I'm sure Snider wouldn't mind going to the Olympics if it meant Voracek scoring a couple of goals with a Flyers emblem on his jersey in front of a TV audience of 1 billion.

Yes, yes, I know 'the IOC would never allow it'. But time to think outside the box.