HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

2014 Olympics and the NHL (UPD: NHL, NHLPA, IIHF, IOC meeting this week)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-02-2013, 08:58 PM
  #101
predfan98
Registered User
 
predfan98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyerMaker66 View Post
Vladislav Tretiak played at the 1980 Olympics and I'm pretty sure he was a professional hockey player (regardless of what the IOC says).

NHL players aren't payed to play at the Olympics, they're payed to play in the NHL.

Like Swimming and Running? I'm sure Michael Phelps and Usain Bolt aren't payed athletes.



"Hey go play hockey for honour but bring back that shiny gold medal!"
read a little history and realize things are different than they used to be, and different in every sport and in every country.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/22/opinio...urs/index.html

predfan98 is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 09:06 PM
  #102
Xref
Registered User
 
Xref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meteor View Post
Don't get this thinking.

The 2002 Belarus team begs to differ. It was pros playing pros, but it was a miraculous win all the same.

Also, there were massive parades in the Czech Republic after they defeated their former masters Russia 1-0 in an emotionally charged final in 1998.

Allowing NHL players to play has not prevented major upsets from happening or made victory any less euphoric.
I'm talking about a Miracle for the US. I don't care about Belarus or any other country.

Xref is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 09:36 PM
  #103
Roughneck
Registered User
 
Roughneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Calgary
Country: Ireland
Posts: 8,622
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Roughneck
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xref View Post
I'm talking about a Miracle for the US. I don't care about Belarus or any other country.
You're not going to recreate any sort of miracle by sending college players anymore. As mentioned there would no longer be the dream teams to beat anymore (nobody talks about the American defeat of Finland to win the gold) because the other teams wouldn't be built the same. U.S. college players beating Canada's Spengler Cup team and the KHL All-Stars doesn't have the same mystique as beating the mysterious and machine-like Red Army of the Cold War.

Nor is there the political overlay anymore. Had the same U.S. team beaten a Canadian 'Canada Cup' team it would still be a miracle, but not the same cultural defining moment the defeat of the Soviets was. It was more than a hockey game, which is "all" you'd be getting now

Wanting to go to a more nostalgia setup is great, just remember that nostalgia isn't what it used to be.

Roughneck is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 09:57 PM
  #104
Xref
Registered User
 
Xref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 753
vCash: 500
I'm not looking to "recreate" anything. I'm wanting to give our amateur kids the opportunity to live out their dream and gain the international competition that the Olympics provide. I gained a ton of great experience from USA Hockey (AHAUS back then), so I guess I am a little nostalgic, but I'd like to see them take back the Olympics with and for the kids. I'd like to see USA Hockey programs grow and flourish even more than it has. The pros have their NHL. Give the Olympics back to the kids. Silly me.

Xref is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 10:16 PM
  #105
Jussi
I am siege face
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Finland
Posts: 42,280
vCash: 612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Yep. And they too deserve some Olympic coin's.
Yet they aren't asking for anything nor will they ask for any. So your whole anti-Olympic parade is for deaf ears.

Forgot to add this earlier, since you were so concerned about what the IOC does with all the Olympic revenue, all you need to do is google it. I lined an article to it in another thread here before, the distribution of the money was fully explained in the pdf document.

Jussi is online now  
Old
01-02-2013, 11:01 PM
  #106
Roughneck
Registered User
 
Roughneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Calgary
Country: Ireland
Posts: 8,622
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Roughneck
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xref View Post
I'm not looking to "recreate" anything. I'm wanting to give our amateur kids the opportunity to live out their dream and gain the international competition that the Olympics provide. I gained a ton of great experience from USA Hockey (AHAUS back then), so I guess I am a little nostalgic, but I'd like to see them take back the Olympics with and for the kids. I'd like to see USA Hockey programs grow and flourish even more than it has. The pros have their NHL. Give the Olympics back to the kids. Silly me.
Amateur kids? How many players of that 1980 team didn't go on to play pro (a few played pro before they joined the team). Hell, how many didn't play 100+ games in the NHL?

The only difference between the "amateur kids" of the "amateur" era and professionals of today is that the latter went to the U.S. national team instead of the AHL (or the NHL) for a year.

So "silly me". Yes, I'd say so. You're not 'giving it to the kids', you're giving it to 22 year olds who are merely taking the Olympic option rather than the pro option before they eventually go pro. I'm not sure how you think sending a second rate team of pro-bound players would grow hockey programs even more. The 1984 and 1988 teams had similar amounts of players who would become middling pros as the Miracle team did as well (and some stars like Lafontaine and Chelios).

How should hockey in the Olympics be treated? Like the other sports. Where the people who have devoted their lives to being the best are given the chance to compete on the world's biggest stage.

Roughneck is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 04:53 AM
  #107
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,500
vCash: 500
The best thing for hockey would be if the IIHF could organize their own tournament where all the best players could and would attend. Right now all the revenue that the Olympic hockey generates ends subsidizing the other Olympic sports. The IIHF is missing out on a huge amount of money that could be used for hockey development.

Mr Kanadensisk is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 09:51 AM
  #108
Xref
Registered User
 
Xref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roughneck View Post
Amateur kids? How many players of that 1980 team didn't go on to play pro (a few played pro before they joined the team). Hell, how many didn't play 100+ games in the NHL?

The only difference between the "amateur kids" of the "amateur" era and professionals of today is that the latter went to the U.S. national team instead of the AHL (or the NHL) for a year.

So "silly me". Yes, I'd say so. You're not 'giving it to the kids', you're giving it to 22 year olds who are merely taking the Olympic option rather than the pro option before they eventually go pro. I'm not sure how you think sending a second rate team of pro-bound players would grow hockey programs even more. The 1984 and 1988 teams had similar amounts of players who would become middling pros as the Miracle team did as well (and some stars like Lafontaine and Chelios).

How should hockey in the Olympics be treated? Like the other sports. Where the people who have devoted their lives to being the best are given the chance to compete on the world's biggest stage.
What the players do AFTER the Olympics is not relevant to their pro status. I don't think that any of those 1980 players were pros when they were selected for the Olympic team. Yes 2 or 3 were paid pros (not NHL'rs though) prior to joining their schools, but each of them gave up their pro status and were college players at the time.

There is no "Olympic option" in the sense that players decide themselves if they play on the team or not. You are selected to try out for the team.


Last edited by Xref: 01-03-2013 at 10:12 AM.
Xref is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 10:11 AM
  #109
Roughneck
Registered User
 
Roughneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Calgary
Country: Ireland
Posts: 8,622
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Roughneck
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xref View Post
What the players do AFTER the Olympics is not relevant to their pro status. I don't think that any of those 1980 players were pros when they were selected for the Olympic team. Every one of them were college players at the time.
Eruzione was a pro before he joined the team. I'm sure there were a few others as well.

What players do BEFORE the Olympics isn't relevant to their pro status either. Hell, Peter Nedved was an NHLer before he played in the Olympics as an 'amateur' in 1994.

Quote:
There is no "Olympic option" in the sense that players decide themselves if they play on the team or not. You are selected to try out for the team.
You accept the invitation. If you want to take the Olympic option you don't go straight to the pros (i.e. Jimmy Craig) but if you don't want to take the Olympic option, you take the money (i.e. Joe Mullen).

Roughneck is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 10:18 AM
  #110
Xref
Registered User
 
Xref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roughneck View Post
Eruzione was a pro before he joined the team. I'm sure there were a few others as well.

What players do BEFORE the Olympics isn't relevant to their pro status either. Hell, Peter Nedved was an NHLer before he played in the Olympics as an 'amateur' in 1994.



You accept the invitation. If you want to take the Olympic option you don't go straight to the pros (i.e. Jimmy Craig) but if you don't want to take the Olympic option, you take the money (i.e. Joe Mullen).
Yes, 2 or 3 players were minor league "pros" before joining their schools. But they gave up that pro status to play college hockey. They were not pros at the time they were selected nor during the tournament. The overwhelming majority of the team were college kids.

Xref is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 10:23 AM
  #111
Jussi
I am siege face
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Finland
Posts: 42,280
vCash: 612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
The best thing for hockey would be if the IIHF could organize their own tournament where all the best players could and would attend. Right now all the revenue that the Olympic hockey generates ends subsidizing the other Olympic sports. The IIHF is missing out on a huge amount of money that could be used for hockey development.
Source/link? It's pretty much given that biathlon and figure skating will get bigger ratings globally at Sochi than hockey.

Jussi is online now  
Old
01-03-2013, 10:37 AM
  #112
jekoh
Registered User
 
jekoh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,752
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roughneck View Post
Hell, Peter Nedved was an NHLer before he played in the Olympics as an 'amateur' in 1994.
He didn't play as an amateur. In 1994 the distinction between amateurs and pros had been removed altogether from the olympic charter for about 10 years.

jekoh is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 12:08 PM
  #113
Roughneck
Registered User
 
Roughneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Calgary
Country: Ireland
Posts: 8,622
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Roughneck
Quote:
Originally Posted by jekoh View Post
He didn't play as an amateur. In 1994 the distinction between amateurs and pros had been removed altogether from the olympic charter for about 10 years.
Fair enough. But not being under contract and on Canada's national team, he was as much an 'amateur' as the teams of the pre-86 Olympic eras.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xref View Post
Yes, 2 or 3 players were minor league "pros" before joining their schools. But they gave up that pro status to play college hockey. They were not pros at the time they were selected nor during the tournament. The overwhelming majority of the team were college kids.
I'm saying that Eruzione finished his college career, went to the minors and THEN went to the national team (I don't think you can do what you suggested). Only Broten would ever go back to college after playing on the team (as many had finished their college career, and chose between the minors or the national team).

Take the current U.S. World Junior team, take away a couple of the stars who will want to play in the NHL next year, add some college seniors and you have a pretty good idea of what an 'amateur kid' era U.S. team would look like for Sochi (though it should be pointed out the average age of an "amateur kid" team is about 3 years older than a World Junior team is allowed to be). The same kids that are a product of the current development system, the same one that would feed to a 'NHL-participation' national team. You're not opening it up to "kids" who hadn't already planned to try to forge a career in hockey, you're just "giving it" to a more diluted pool of players.

Roughneck is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 12:52 PM
  #114
jekoh
Registered User
 
jekoh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,752
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roughneck View Post
Fair enough. But not being under contract and on Canada's national team, he was as much an 'amateur' as the teams of the pre-86 Olympic eras.
Yes, officially they were, though Canada's National Team were 'amateurs' in name only and were in fact state professionnals very much like the Soviet players or indeed NCAA players.

jekoh is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 01:38 PM
  #115
Xref
Registered User
 
Xref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roughneck View Post
Fair enough. But not being under contract and on Canada's national team, he was as much an 'amateur' as the teams of the pre-86 Olympic eras.



I'm saying that Eruzione finished his college career, went to the minors and THEN went to the national team (I don't think you can do what you suggested). Only Broten would ever go back to college after playing on the team (as many had finished their college career, and chose between the minors or the national team).

Take the current U.S. World Junior team, take away a couple of the stars who will want to play in the NHL next year, add some college seniors and you have a pretty good idea of what an 'amateur kid' era U.S. team would look like for Sochi (though it should be pointed out the average age of an "amateur kid" team is about 3 years older than a World Junior team is allowed to be). The same kids that are a product of the current development system, the same one that would feed to a 'NHL-participation' national team. You're not opening it up to "kids" who hadn't already planned to try to forge a career in hockey, you're just "giving it" to a more diluted pool of players.
But again, you are talking about a very small minority of the players. Most were indeed drafted by NHL teams before 1980. But they pursued their Olympic dream through the college ranks before turning pro. Opening up the Olympics to NHL pros eliminates this experience. I don't see how that would help grow their career, or dream of playing Olympic hockey on their way to the pros.

Xref is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 04:25 PM
  #116
garbageteam
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xref View Post
As far as I'm concerned, all those other leagues can act as they please. My only concern is the NHL. I don't want them sending players to the Olympics. I'd rather have amateurs, college kids get the opportunity of a lifetime.
Why do these college kids/amateurs deserve this opportunity and exposure? They aren't good enough to make it to the big leagues, so why should they get something handed to them for being mediocre? Pro athletes are pros for a reason - they are very good at the game they play. People wouldn't watch the tournament if it's played by amateurs by some countries and by pros by another. I for one do not want to see Canada packed with a bunch of kids who have no business being there getting creamed 50 shots to 15 by a dubiously "amateur" Russian team.

This whole "Olympics is for amateurs" stuff is nonsense in today's version of the Olympics. I understand the desire and intent, but the Olympics is a commercial event that does not carry that spirit and intent anymore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by worstfaceoffmanever View Post
I just don't understand why you want to throw away the best and most intense hockey competition in the world for the off chance at a feelgood story. The Olympics should be a competition for the world's finest athletes in its given sports, not the world's finest athletes under a certain age our outside of a specific group. Who cares if those athletes are professional?
Exactly. Unless there is a World Cup of hockey that every nation agrees upon and participates in, the Olympics is the gold standard for international hockey competition right now. If the kids aren't good enough to be pros, they don't deserve to be there to represent the nation (and again I stress, only to be dominated by other nations that find clever ways to circumvent the "amateur" rule, which is an absurdly stupid situation).

Being a "pro" does not make your contributions invalid - your country, its tax dollars, environment, culture and infrastructure is what lead one to become a pro. Canada has so many professional hockey players because it has a very strong hockey culture and sport infrastructure. It's absurdity to take that away just because Canada is good at producing top hockey players.

And although brought up many times, it needs to be repeated - making a sporting competition "amateurs only" is NOT a feel good story. Only the rich and privileged with plenty of leisure time and money will have the ability to participate - especially with a sport as expensive as hockey. Boo-freaking-hoo, some rich college kids couldn't get into the Olympics because there are equally rich kids who are actually GOOD at the sport and are getting paid to play...cry some more. It might work for soccer/football, where some undiscovered homeless talent on a Nigerian pickup game might deserve a shot as an amateur, but not for hockey...or most winter sports.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GKJ View Post
The difference between doing the Olympics and Canada Cap (or whatever), is that Canada Cups and World Championships and World Juniors and the like are essentially still for real hockey fans. The Olympics are not - they are mainstream, it's a difference audience, and for once the sport is actually the main event. The NHL doesn't gain from that, but they'd never lose from it either.

As for people saying that there wouldn't be "feel good stories" akin to the Miracle on Ice, ask someone in Minsk how they feel about 2002. It would still be possible, it just wouldn't be possible for America.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xref View Post
I'm talking about a Miracle for the US. I don't care about Belarus or any other country.
I and many others couldn't care less about the US miracle on ice either which had the ridiculous premise of an amateur team vs a semi-pro team that should never be repeated again, so why should the rest of the world bend over so that you have another chance to witness glory for your team?

For those who want to take away top level hockey talent from Olympics, the onus should be on you to find a feasible alternative for a best-on-best international hockey tournament that unites a nation and gets us excited about something as it did in 2010. If that does not exist or you can not think of one, please let us quietly enjoy our existing competition framework.

garbageteam is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 04:34 PM
  #117
Xref
Registered User
 
Xref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by garbageteam View Post
Why do these college kids/amateurs deserve this opportunity and exposure? They aren't good enough to make it to the big leagues, so why should they get something handed to them for being mediocre? Pro athletes are pros for a reason - they are very good at the game they play. People wouldn't watch the tournament if it's played by amateurs by some countries and by pros by another. I for one do not want to see Canada packed with a bunch of kids who have no business being there getting creamed 50 shots to 15 by a dubiously "amateur" Russian team.

This whole "Olympics is for amateurs" stuff is nonsense in today's version of the Olympics. I understand the desire and intent, but the Olympics is a commercial event that does not carry that spirit and intent anymore.



Exactly. Unless there is a World Cup of hockey that every nation agrees upon and participates in, the Olympics is the gold standard for international hockey competition right now. If the kids aren't good enough to be pros, they don't deserve to be there to represent the nation (and again I stress, only to be dominated by other nations that find clever ways to circumvent the "amateur" rule, which is an absurdly stupid situation).

Being a "pro" does not make your contributions invalid - your country, its tax dollars, environment, culture and infrastructure is what lead one to become a pro. Canada has so many professional hockey players because it has a very strong hockey culture and sport infrastructure. It's absurdity to take that away just because Canada is good at producing top hockey players.

And although brought up many times, it needs to be repeated - making a sporting competition "amateurs only" is NOT a feel good story. Only the rich and privileged with plenty of leisure time and money will have the ability to participate - especially with a sport as expensive as hockey. Boo-freaking-hoo, some rich college kids couldn't get into the Olympics because there are equally rich kids who are actually GOOD at the sport and are getting paid to play...cry some more. It might work for soccer/football, where some undiscovered homeless talent on a Nigerian pickup game might deserve a shot as an amateur, but not for hockey...or most winter sports.





I and many others couldn't care less about the US miracle on ice either which had the ridiculous premise of an amateur team vs a semi-pro team that should never be repeated again, so why should the rest of the world bend over so that you have another chance to witness glory for your team?

For those who want to take away top level hockey talent from Olympics, the onus should be on you to find a feasible alternative for a best-on-best international hockey tournament that unites a nation and gets us excited about something as it did in 2010. If that does not exist or you can not think of one, please let us quietly enjoy our existing competition framework.
Who is asking the "rest of the world bend over"???? You are the ones that want the NHL to come to a halt to allow the pros in. So who is it in reality that is asking the hockey world to bend over?? If you want your Canadian pros in the Olympics, so be it. Let them go. And this isn't about a "feel good story" either. Those are not MY words. I want our US amateur kids to get the Olympic experience. I care about American hockey development at the lower levels. I'm sorry that you all can't wrap your head around this concept.

Yup, Herb was also told that there is no way that his kids would be able to compete against the mighty Europeans, just ilke what I'm reading in here. I think he proved them all to be foolish and dead wrong.

If you all don't care about the Miracle on Ice, that's a shame. It had a profound impact here in the US on many levels, especially the political scene. Perhaps you are too young to remember what was going on here. If so, look it up. A premise? LOFL. Please.


Last edited by Xref: 01-03-2013 at 04:48 PM.
Xref is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 04:46 PM
  #118
RJ8812
Gunner Stahl #9
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sudbury
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,253
vCash: 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xref View Post
Who is asking the "rest of the world bend over"???? You are the ones that want the NHL to come to a halt to allow the pros in. So who is it in reality that is asking the hockey world to bend over?? If you want your Canadian pros in the Olympics, so be it. Let them go. I want our US amateur kids to get the Olympic experience. I care about American hockey development at the lower levels. I'm sorry that you can't wrap your head around this concept.

If you all don't care about the Miracle on Ice, that's a shame for you all. It had a profound impact here in the US on many levels, especially the political scene. Perhaps you are too young to remember what was going on here. If so, look it up. A premise? LOFL. Please.
Well, why would we care about The Miracle on Ice? It doesn't involve Canada. Much like, why would you care about the '72 Summit Series?

RJ8812 is online now  
Old
01-03-2013, 04:49 PM
  #119
Xref
Registered User
 
Xref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RJ8812 View Post
Well, why would we care about The Miracle on Ice? It doesn't involve Canada. Much like, why would you care about the '72 Summit Series?
I did. It was fantastic compelling hockey.

Xref is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 06:11 PM
  #120
Roughneck
Registered User
 
Roughneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Calgary
Country: Ireland
Posts: 8,622
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Roughneck
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xref View Post
I want our US amateur kids to get the Olympic experience. I care about American hockey development at the lower levels. I'm sorry that you all can't wrap your head around this concept.
What lower levels? These were NCAA players, they didn't come from the lower levels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xref View Post
But again, you are talking about a very small minority of the players. Most were indeed drafted by NHL teams before 1980. But they pursued their Olympic dream through the college ranks before turning pro. Opening up the Olympics to NHL pros eliminates this experience. I don't see how that would help grow their career, or dream of playing Olympic hockey on their way to the pros.

Roughneck is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 06:16 PM
  #121
Xref
Registered User
 
Xref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roughneck View Post
What lower levels? These were NCAA players, they didn't come from the lower levels.



What? Did they grow on trees? Aliens? You don't think these kids came up through the AHAUS ranks and other minor organized hockey leagues in the US? We are speaking 2 completely different languages if you do. LOL.

Xref is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 06:23 PM
  #122
Roughneck
Registered User
 
Roughneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Calgary
Country: Ireland
Posts: 8,622
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Roughneck
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xref View Post
What? Did they grow on trees? Aliens? You don't think these kids came up through the AHAUS ranks and other minor organized hockey leagues in the US? We are speaking 2 completely different languages if you do. LOL.
Perhaps we are, because I don't see how 22 year old Mark Johnson making the team is better for those lower development leagues than 22 year old Joe Mullen going pro and being ineligible for the Olympics. These guys weren't picked for the team from the lower leagues, they were picked from the same level that the NHL pros you don't want are picked from.

What would change in the 'lower leagues' today if they stop taking Zach Parise and Patrick Kane because they're pros now, and using the same selection process as 1980?

Roughneck is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 06:34 PM
  #123
Xref
Registered User
 
Xref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roughneck View Post
Perhaps we are, because I don't see how 22 year old Mark Johnson making the team is better for those lower development leagues than 22 year old Joe Mullen going pro and being ineligible for the Olympics. These guys weren't picked for the team from the lower leagues, they were picked from the same level that the NHL pros you don't want are picked from.

What would change in the 'lower leagues' today if they stop taking Zach Parise and Patrick Kane because they're pros now, and using the same selection process as 1980?
Pretend you are a young 20 or 21-year old stud. Would you NOT want the opportunity to play international Olympic hockey before turning pro? Having kids come up through the minor hockey ranks with the possibility of international play improves the quality of the leagues, improves the interest in these developmental leagues, and improves the quality of the players that participate in these leagues.

I really cannot fathom how people don't see this. When you guys were kids, did you not dream of moving up the ranks each step of the way? Mites to Squirts, Squirts to Peewee, etc etc etc?

Xref is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 06:58 PM
  #124
Roughneck
Registered User
 
Roughneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Calgary
Country: Ireland
Posts: 8,622
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Roughneck
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xref View Post
Pretend you are a young 20 or 21-year old stud. Would you NOT want the opportunity to play international Olympic hockey before turning pro?
Is this the only option or can I choose the "make money and still have the opportunity to play international Olympic hockey" instead?

Quote:
Having kids come up through the minor hockey ranks with the possibility of international play improves the quality of the leagues
Only if you believe that having pros be allowed to play will cause the good players to quit hockey.

And I'd say it makes it worse since you lose a handful of the top players from those leagues for a year. You see it in women's hockey which has the national team setup. A couple dozen of the best players don't play in the league while they go to play for their national team for the season.

And I don't think the CHL is improved quality for the month the 20-50 world junior players are gone from it.

Quote:
improves the interest in these developmental leagues
It does?

Quote:
and improves the quality of the players that participate in these leagues.
How? Because the motivation of being able to make a living off of hockey isn't enough?

The league stays the same whether they're taking pros or the guys who are finished with that league and choose the team in lieu of going pro.

Quote:
I really cannot fathom how people don't see this. When you guys were kids, did you not dream of moving up the ranks each step of the way? Mites to Squirts, Squirts to Peewee, etc etc etc?
I guess I was excited about going from Atom to Peewee because we got to start hitting but I never really thought about it much. These are age-based levels, not merit based ones, never seemed like much of a carrot to chase to simply grow older.

Roughneck is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 03:16 PM
  #125
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xref View Post
Who is asking the "rest of the world bend over"???? You are the ones that want the NHL to come to a halt to allow the pros in. So who is it in reality that is asking the hockey world to bend over?? If you want your Canadian pros in the Olympics, so be it. Let them go. And this isn't about a "feel good story" either. Those are not MY words. I want our US amateur kids to get the Olympic experience. I care about American hockey development at the lower levels. I'm sorry that you all can't wrap your head around this concept.

Yup, Herb was also told that there is no way that his kids would be able to compete against the mighty Europeans, just ilke what I'm reading in here. I think he proved them all to be foolish and dead wrong.

If you all don't care about the Miracle on Ice, that's a shame. It had a profound impact here in the US on many levels, especially the political scene. Perhaps you are too young to remember what was going on here. If so, look it up. A premise? LOFL. Please.
Considering it was almost 35 years ago it's almost as relevent as Canadians regurgitating that we marched down and burned the White House. Talk about living in the past.

Do you really have a hard ntime excepting it was a fluke a one time thing. It's why the playoffs are a best 4 of 7 and not given to the 1st team to win a game.


Last edited by Confucius: 01-04-2013 at 03:23 PM.
Confucius is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:18 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.