Location: Chiefs Kingdom, Yankees Universe, C of Red.
Exp:
I have a relative who plays in the national program. Watching her play in the various camps over the years at Winsport, it always amazed me at the complete lack of interest in the woman's game. The Canadian U19 team would be playing the US U19 team, so the top players in the world with free admission, and other than family and friends of the players there isn't anyone watching. My mother even pointed out when my 6 year old son played in a tournament at Winsport that there was more people watching that than our relative's games at the same location.
Even after some of the team USA vs Canada U19 or even the Womans Fall Festival at Winsport. I would wait around after for a visit. I would see numerous teenage girls getting dropped off for hockey practice at the front door. They could have just watched some of the best woman in the world play for free at the same facility they are playing in and I bet they knew nothing about it.
Canada does do a good job of supporting the Woman's National Team at various games spread through out the country during the year. But a woman's pro league would be so watered down compared to a Canada versus USA game. The only way I see a woman's pro league existing, is if it's heavily subsidized.
I’d also suggest that a women’s league might do better in satellite cities. So they are the local team for, say, Airdrie or Okotoks, and can draw from the locals for core support, but can draw from interested people in the city. Every big city has such exurbs. And many have decent enough facilities for a league like this.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
I think an annual World Cup tour or league would work. One of the weaknesses of the men’s game is that international games do not really work because of scheduling conflicts with the NHL.
"Agree to disagree" is not an escape plan for when you are objectively wrong.
Anyway, A major problem for any pro league of this level is going to be travel. It's just not going to work with a Western Canada presence. You'd be best off starting largely in the GTA, becoming entrenched, then growing.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
Location: Chiefs Kingdom, Yankees Universe, C of Red.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
"Agree to disagree" is not an escape plan for when you are objectively wrong.
Anyway, A major problem for any pro league of this level is going to be travel. It's just not going to work with a Western Canada presence. You'd be best off starting largely in the GTA, becoming entrenched, then growing.
Kind of like an original six idea. Toronto, Montreal, Detroit, Boston, New York. Something like that.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to burn_baby_burn For This Useful Post:
It is a plan for when it feels like both sides are beating a dead horse and opinions aren’t going to change. We can debate all day long both repeating our existing opinions and accomplishing nothing, but wasting each other’s time.
Kind of like an original six idea. Toronto, Montreal, Detroit, Boston, New York. Something like that.
Not even that. Consider more the original markets when the NHL formed: Montreal, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Quebec City. When Quebec quickly dropped, the furthest outposts were Toronto to Montreal at a 7 hour train ride.
The Following User Says Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
Location: Chiefs Kingdom, Yankees Universe, C of Red.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
Not even that. Consider more the original markets when the NHL formed: Montreal, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Quebec City. When Quebec quickly dropped, the furthest outposts were Toronto to Montreal at a 7 hour train ride.
Good point, but a US franchise or two might need to be added to the mix.
Pro women hockey MAY work if they do it in a tour / tournament style where the league has say 6 or 8 teams, they all go to a host city for weekend games, and every week they rotate the host city.
So let's say all Canadian NHL cities have a women's team, we can have a tour schedule of like Vancouver on Week 1, Calgary on Week 2, Toronto on Week 3, and so on.
That could keep the interest (and attention span, and spending) of fans of the cities, for example each year there will only be 1 or 2 weekends of women's hockey in your city. People may treat this as a one-time annual event, rather than follow a team for 20/30 home games a year.
I brought up this idea in a similar thread several months ago, My other suggestion was to go to a 3 on 3 format which would offer something different then trying to compete with mens hockey.
__________________
The only thing better then a glass of beer is tea with Ms McGill
I think a factor in the lack of popularity is the full cages they all wear. Seems minor but when you have 10 players skating around in full cages there is no individuality there, no personality, you can't see the person, you just see 10 random people.
If they copied from the NHL I believe there would be more interest. No full cages, add some physicality (to what extent I don't know), and perhaps above all we need the rest of the world to catch up. Which is slowly happening as well.
As of right now, its not the same game as mens hockey, to me thats where the issue is.
Sort of like why the CFL is so far behind the NFL, its just not as fun to watch. Its neutered in comparison.
Tonight in Victoria I went to see Canada play the US. First off I had fun. I enjoyed the game and Canada won in OT.
Saying that it was really Lame to see the game ramp up a couple times leading to a more physical game. Great right, nope cause the aggressive play lead to some contact and penalties cut the physical play shortly after.
Still fun, but they need to allow more physicality in the game.
It took 70 odd years for the NHL and most other sports to pay a living wage, if you were a soccer player in England in the 50's and 60's you were subsidizing your meager wages with a second job
It's not a difference of opinion, Frankster. Your argument is objectively wrong as a matter of fact.
Let me re-word Frankster's point, if I am seeing it correctly:
His claim isn't that Calgary is worse than other places at supporting other forms of hockey than top-tier-pro. His claim is that the support isn't huge, and this is backed up by the fact that the arena is mostly empty.
"Ahh, but 6000 people at a Hitmen game is better than the Brampton Beavers draw, so support is high!"
No. That's the wrong conclusion. The better conclusion to draw is that even in a hockey-mad large center like calgary, interest in hockey other than top-tier pro is limited, and it's even more limited anywhere else. There isn't enough interest here, and the objectively weak (numbers) attendance rather than the subjecively strong (we get more people to the rink than the Sarnia Shinglers or whoever prove that.
