HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Rink (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=150)
-   -   Should pro players play in the Olympics? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=542071)

Headcoach 08-07-2008 12:44 AM

Should pro players play in the Olympics?
 
So let me ask you this simple question...

Do you think it's fare for pro players to play in the Olympics? I remember growing up, that this was every kids dream, was to play on the National team and a chance to win gold.

It was kind of another way for the kid that didn't have a whole lot of money to go to college, a way to some day make it to the big leagues.

But now a days, it just not so. With big contract pro players making 10 million dollars a year, they are getting all of the attention fighting for the gold and kicking everyones a** in the process.

Doesn't that just take everything out of the game? Should the Olympics just be for the amateur player and not the $10 million dollars pro player?

Don't you just feel better to see and amateur kick the ever loving sh** out of some one, then to see a pro player kick the crap out of an amateur!

Or, should we just clap our hands and say...."Way to go million dollar man, you sure showed them, didn't you!" :handclap:

I say...let's go back to the way it was. Let the amateur play!

Head coach

johnunit 08-07-2008 12:57 AM

I think you should let the best people play. It's silly to not let someone play because they're good enough to, under a different sanctioning body, be paid for it. It's like only giving Nobel Prizes to backyard astronomers and kids in the science fair. It doesn't matter for sports like Kayaking, Swimming, Speed-skating, etc. because they can't make significant money off it anyway, but if the thing you're best at is hockey, it seems silly to have to choose between being in the Olympics, and being in the NHL, the two accepted measures of a great player. Ruling out anyone who gets paid for it seems like a weird way of thinning out the talent pool, and seems a tad hypocritical when you start looking at the sponsorships most great olympic athletes get. Isn't that also being paid for being good at what you do? Surely RBC wouldn't be paying you anything or putting their name behind you if you weren't a great Kayaker. How is that really different than the New York Rangers saying you're a great hockey player and them giving you money to succeed for them?

nullterm 08-07-2008 01:27 AM

Yes. The Olympics is a competition of a country's best. And the best are playing in the NHL. Atleast from a Canadian perspective, but I think the States is in the same boat.

As for amateurs, isn't that what the World Juniors are for? And if you're playing in that, then there's a strong chance are you'll be making an appearance in the NHL. And it happens every year, not once every four.

Hasbro 08-07-2008 02:55 AM

Yes amateurism is an out-dated, exploitive and classist concept based on revisionist history.

MG91 08-07-2008 03:13 AM

Let the best players do their thing. They deserve to be there, they are the best in the world and thats what the Olympics are all about

Gino 14 08-07-2008 05:56 AM

The Russians answered that question a long time ago. They always sent professionals to the Olympics. Anytime you subsidize an athlete like they did to allow them to train year round and not have to support themselves, you're sending pros. Everyone should be allowed to send their best.

krax 08-07-2008 07:07 AM

At what precise moment do you stop being an amateur?

jekoh 08-07-2008 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Headcoach (Post 15096145)
Don't you just feel better to see and amateur kick the ever loving sh** out of some one, then to see a pro player kick the crap out of an amateur!

There are no amateurs at the Olympics, so that can't happen.

frito 08-07-2008 08:59 AM

I guess I'm in the minority here and agree 100% with coach. To me, the dream just seems to be gone sending the NHL's to the Olympics. Never again will we see a "Miracle on Ice" type of thing as long as we're sending the pros. All we're watching is the prima donas getting mroe face time. Maybe not as much with the hockey players as with the basketball players, but it is the prima donas nonetheless.

Hasbro 08-07-2008 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krax (Post 15096986)
At what precise moment do you stop being an amateur?

When you get paid with a check.

jekoh 08-07-2008 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frito (Post 15097486)
To me, the dream just seems to be gone sending the NHL's to the Olympics. Never again will we see a "Miracle on Ice" type of thing as long as we're sending the pros.

Without the Soviet pros there wouldn't have been a Miracle on ice in the first place.

Nikita Filatov* 08-07-2008 10:00 AM

I think the best players should play. If it's an amatuer, then so be it. What ever gives us the best chance to win (this goes for every country)

JordanStaal#1Fan 08-07-2008 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frito (Post 15097486)
I guess I'm in the minority here and agree 100% with coach. To me, the dream just seems to be gone sending the NHL's to the Olympics. Never again will we see a "Miracle on Ice" type of thing as long as we're sending the pros. All we're watching is the prima donas getting mroe face time. Maybe not as much with the hockey players as with the basketball players, but it is the prima donas nonetheless.

No Canadian kid I know dreamed of winning of Olympic gold medal before the pros were allowed to play because in Canada, all we REALLY care for, is the Stanley Cup. I understand that Americans want to relieve the magic that the 1980 Winter Olympic were but, personnally, I prefer to see the best players go at it, it is WAY more fun.

krax 08-07-2008 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hasbro (Post 15097526)
When you get paid with a check.

Well, then I doubt there's been any amateur at the olympics for the last 50 years ;)
I think it's a little bit more complex...

Randall Ritchey 08-07-2008 11:07 AM

I think that we should go back to the way it was. Hold try-outs of the best amateur kids in the nation. Let them play that way. No one said it better than Herb Brooks. Once they made dream teams, there was no more reason to dream.

Fordy 08-07-2008 11:32 AM

I'd rather watch the pros than Billy from down the street.

Lugaid 08-07-2008 11:53 AM

Yeah, otherwise it wouldn't be watched probably. They know what they're doing.

Robo-Pope 08-07-2008 11:54 AM

Not allowing professionals in hockey would be difficult because there are so damn many professional leagues--it would end up being essentially restricted to junior players, and considering that in places kids are paid at a very young age, some countries would basically be shut out.

Devil Dancer 08-07-2008 11:58 AM

Please, keep the pros! Olympic hockey, in its current form, is the only event that doesn't completely suck.

mbeam 08-07-2008 01:17 PM

Olympic sports are platforms for the best talent in the to world compete and that is going to be the professionals. So yes, let them play. I think its unfair to suggest that just because they are getting paid millions elsewhere that they would be less enthusiastic to play for their country than amateurs would be and that the level of play would diminish.

Harv 08-07-2008 01:26 PM

I love the Olympics because of the national chemisty between the Pro players.

no.95 08-07-2008 02:17 PM

The pros should stay.
Kind of hard to find amateur players these days outside the NCAA.

MikeD 08-07-2008 06:03 PM

The desire to see the Olympic Games a platform for Ameteur sports has nothing to do with reliving 1980. That event could never be duplicated. It was a different time. The truth of the matter, to affect the nation, is that it could have been ANY team sport. We were fortunate that the hockey gods smiled on our boys that day. Do you feel that we americans are that shallow and insecure about ourselves as a nation that we would need to relive it? Its a new day and for the most part, the USA is very FORWARD minded. Just look at how many times we(government) have failed to learn from past mistakes and repeat them! lol

Most athletes, regardless of national origin, dream of olympic gold. To even suggest that Olympic Hockey Gold was a "MEH" to the majority of Canadians is ubsurd. Canadian Olympic Hockey starting in 1920 had them holding 5 of the first six Gold medals. Earning four consecutive with just one "draw" with the USA, preventing Canada from winning gold the first six times. The Rosters of these teams were drawn from the Clubs that were to form the foundations of the NHL.

Canada Felt strongly enough about the value of Olympic gold that after Several more Olympics pass with out gold, they boycott the venue and protest the eastern-bloc teams rosters. While these teams did have governement subsidy, they were NOT gainfully employed. This is the fundamental difference between ameteur and pro.

NHL, NBA and MLS players are gainfully employed by the sport. Those players who are rostered on any of these teams should not be eligible.

"To be a religion i.e. to "adhere to an ideal of a higher life, to strive for perfection"; to represent an elite "whose origins are completely egalitarian" and at the same time "chivalry" with its moral qualities; to create a truce "a four-yearly festival of the springtime of mankind"; and to glorify beauty by the "involvement of the philosophic arts in the Games".

These were the four quiding principles when the IOC was formed in the late 1800's. The idea of ameteur status for entrants falls in line with egalitarianism. This gives all nations and peoples an equal footing. Professionals entered do not provide any type of equality when viewed with a broad perspective. Those nations who are fortunate to have the "disposable income" will have a disproportionate advantage over those people who reside in a nation of lesser means.

the Pros have their world championships. There can be no comparison between the golds won by the teams prior to allowing pros into the games. They just dont seem to have the same shine. Give the games back to the youths. I would rather see the old days of players giving 110% than the games of today where it is less than that.

Headcoach 08-07-2008 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeD (Post 15102635)
The desire to see the Olympic Games a platform for Ameteur sports has nothing to do with reliving 1980. That event could never be duplicated. It was a different time. The truth of the matter, to affect the nation, is that it could have been ANY team sport. We were fortunate that the hockey gods smiled on our boys that day. Do you feel that we americans are that shallow and insecure about ourselves as a nation that we would need to relive it? Its a new day and for the most part, the USA is very FORWARD minded. Just look at how many times we(government) have failed to learn from past mistakes and repeat them! lol

Most athletes, regardless of national origin, dream of olympic gold. To even suggest that Olympic Hockey Gold was a "MEH" to the majority of Canadians is ubsurd. Canadian Olympic Hockey starting in 1920 had them holding 5 of the first six Gold medals. Earning four consecutive with just one "draw" with the USA, preventing Canada from winning gold the first six times. The Rosters of these teams were drawn from the Clubs that were to form the foundations of the NHL.

Canada Felt strongly enough about the value of Olympic gold that after Several more Olympics pass with out gold, they boycott the venue and protest the eastern-bloc teams rosters. While these teams did have governement subsidy, they were NOT gainfully employed. This is the fundamental difference between ameteur and pro.

NHL, NBA and MLS players are gainfully employed by the sport. Those players who are rostered on any of these teams should not be eligible.

"To be a religion i.e. to "adhere to an ideal of a higher life, to strive for perfection"; to represent an elite "whose origins are completely egalitarian" and at the same time "chivalry" with its moral qualities; to create a truce "a four-yearly festival of the springtime of mankind"; and to glorify beauty by the "involvement of the philosophic arts in the Games".

These were the four quiding principles when the IOC was formed in the late 1800's. The idea of ameteur status for entrants falls in line with egalitarianism. This gives all nations and peoples an equal footing. Professionals entered do not provide any type of equality when viewed with a broad perspective. Those nations who are fortunate to have the "disposable income" will have a disproportionate advantage over those people who reside in a nation of lesser means.

the Pros have their world championships. There can be no comparison between the golds won by the teams prior to allowing pros into the games. They just dont seem to have the same shine. Give the games back to the youths. I would rather see the old days of players giving 110% than the games of today where it is less than that.

THANK YOU MIKE D! This is exactly what I mean. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Plus, If I can add just a little quick steer of the pot.

In one of those 4 year events, the pros were throwing stuff out of the windows at their hotel. Not really the type of Ambassadors I think we should have representing the nation and our core values. What kind of roll models are they anyways? Oh, I forgot, they not hear to be role models to our kids. It just that our kids watch them day in and day out. I could be off base on this one.

But yes, I can hear it now..."Every travel hockey team breaks a bed or two at some hotel in their travel career!"

Not when I'm the coach. This type of "Bull Sh**" doesn't happen when I'm in charge. Never happended, never will! And to have pro's acting like Peewee's, like they have never been away from home, away from Mommy and Daddy, is just *%#$^*) rediculous :rant:

I would have loved to be the fly on the wall when that coach got called into the USA Hockey office. I wonder if they just patted him on the back and said..."Good job old boy, maybe next time!"

Head Coach

Hasbro 08-08-2008 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeD (Post 15102635)
These were the four quiding principles when the IOC was formed in the late 1800's. The idea of ameteur status for entrants falls in line with egalitarianism. This gives all nations and peoples an equal footing. Professionals entered do not provide any type of equality when viewed with a broad perspective. Those nations who are fortunate to have the "disposable income" will have a disproportionate advantage over those people who reside in a nation of lesser means.

Actually it did quite the opposite. The Olympics were the province of the congenitally rich who could afford to carry on the games as a hobby. The IOC just used some cherry picking by friendly classicists to justify the Olympics as not for pay and enabled people such as the IOC and AAU to exploit athletes.

Ask Jim Thrope and Jesse Owens about the wonders of amateurism.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:33 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.