HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > International Tournaments
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
International Tournaments Discuss international tournaments such as the World Juniors, Olympic hockey, and Ice Hockey World Championships, as they take place; or discuss past tournaments.

If Bettman Does Not Continue NHL Participation In The Olympics...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-01-2010, 03:08 AM
  #76
Jussi
I am siege face
 
Jussi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Finland
Posts: 43,969
vCash: 612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brodie View Post
I don't know... in the pre-Olympic era, nobody ever complained about the Canada/World Cup being the summer.
Back then there wasn't as much competition in televison sports market. Now you have European football leagues either nearing the end (Nordic countries) or having just began (England, Spain, Italy, Germany) plus European Cup competitions (Champions league), summer Olympics, football's European championships, athletics world championships (a huge media and tv atraction e.g. in Finland and Sweden) plus domestic hockey leagues starting soon. The fans and media don't have the appetite anymore at that point for a tournament that is essentially "out of place". I've said it before, just because Canadians want to watch hockey 24/7, there's no point in having a tournament just for them.

Jussi is offline  
Old
03-01-2010, 03:26 AM
  #77
Unstable
Registered User
 
Unstable's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Exiled in NoVA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hlundqvist30 View Post
Then he is a ****ing idiot. How was this not good for the sport of hockey? You can't ask for a better game than what we just witnessed, and the whole world was watching it. I'll be furious if the NHL doesn't break for the Olympics in 2014.
Exactly. Couldn't have been better. What are the odds of Sochi being anywhere near as good? Canada and the US, in overtime, live on a weekend evening. If the NHL never plays in the Olympics again, they'll have pulled out right at the height.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent_TheGreat View Post
The NHL pales in comparison to this game... if he says no to 2014 I will boycott the NHL
Not true. Overall, the NHL features more close games on more nights. You're letting the highlights of this tournament overshadow the blowouts, and forgetting that there's no reason to think that Olympic hockey is consistently this good in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyGaloshes View Post
I just watched the game with a bunch of people that never cared about hockey...

They have all become proud owners of tickets to an upcoming Flyers game.
First, please report back with their reactions to that game. Second, anecdotes about the few people who watched with a serious fan who could get them on their mental feet are not particularly impressive. We'll need to wait for a few months and then look at attendance and TV figures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ribban View Post
What is the cost of not going?

Fans turning away from the NHL?

Players leaving or looking for other alernatives, which ultimately will render a lesser product?

The NHL sinks back in the ranks to become a Canadian Only Club?

The NHL creating a reputation for trying to sabotage the global hockey movement?

The NHL will only be involved with tournaments that favor its base, North America, which automatically lead to fair play speculations and diminish the creditability of any NHL sponsored event?
Probably nothing. The NHL is the highest level of the sport in the world, the vast majority of NHL players aren't involved in the Olympics anyway, the vast majority of NHL fans are primarily NHL fans, and professional sports leagues are proven commercial enterprises even without international play.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rojac View Post
I still say the simple solution is for the IOC to drop hockey from the Winter Olympics. It solves both the competitive problems with women's hockey and the issue of whether or not the NHL should go.
That would work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by awesomo View Post
I wouldnt understand why he wouldnt let them go. I mean Ovechkin is going no matter what. And i mean why would you say no to the olympic games, but at the same time send your teams to England or Sweden?
Those early games in Europe are still NHL games, played in the NHL schedule, with NHL players playing for the NHL clubs that pay them their salaries. Apples and oranges.

Unstable is offline  
Old
03-01-2010, 04:27 AM
  #78
Nine to Five
Now Eight to Four!
 
Nine to Five's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,602
vCash: 500
I think everyone can agree that there will be plenty of WHOAMG THIS WAS AWESOME fans that will promptly forget about the sport.

Similar to me and snowboarding, skating, etc. but if I happen to stumble upon it, I know i'd start watching it purely due to the olympics.
and for one, the olympics introduced sports i never even knew existed (moguls, the many different skiings and snowboardings). even if they don't captivate me as a legitimate fan of the sport until another round of olympics in russia, I'd have to think that some sort of investment in fan awareness is beneficial.

and then there will be the ones that will actually start caring more about the sports. i watched curling in 06 and loved it and watched the tournaments occasionally, but now I'm planning to follow it and go out to some of the briers and such.

the participation being in the CBA really just seems like a bargaining chip for the owners, like others have said i'm sure

Nine to Five is offline  
Old
03-01-2010, 04:36 AM
  #79
Maelmoor
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Maelmoor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 3,609
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Maelmoor
If you love hockey, then you love olympic hockey, nothing beats it when the best are in the tournament, so many awesome games, so many amazing players!

__________________
Todd Harvey, Adam Oates and Darren Puppa, you are all missed in the game of hockey!
Maelmoor is offline  
Old
03-01-2010, 11:02 AM
  #80
optimus2861
Registered User
 
optimus2861's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bedford NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,663
vCash: 500
Been here, done this. USA went to a gold medal game on home soil in 2002 and there was all the talk of how great it was for hockey, how the NHL could capitalize on it, blah blah blah.

Well the NHL locked itself out for a year and still has a bunch of weak markets. No great change in the end. So it will be with this one.

optimus2861 is offline  
Old
03-01-2010, 11:45 AM
  #81
mrzeigler
Geno and Juss '13
 
mrzeigler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 3,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hlundqvist30 View Post
Then he is a ****ing idiot. How was this not good for the sport of hockey? You can't ask for a better game than what we just witnessed, and the whole world was watching it. I'll be furious if the NHL doesn't break for the Olympics in 2014.
I used to believe this, too. That was, until I got home from Vancouver and found out that at least until Sunday's gold medal game only ONE entire Olympic hockey game (US-Finland) had been broadcast in the US, and that was on an NBC-affiliate cable channel.

It is an absolute MUST for the NHL to have IOC broadcast partners (i.e. NBC) guarantee a minimum number of games being broadcast.

Both the NHL and the players union must be on the same page in pushing for broadcast exposure if the league and $200 million worth of players expose themselves to risk of injury for the sake of the IOC.

Also, it is grossly counterproductive for the NHLPA to push for olympics participation in the next CB agreement and for players to shun the media after games. They had the most diverse group of media to ever cover hockey at their beck and call, and these guys blew the opportunity. Talk of a player (mostly Russian) mutiny for Sochi only hurts the league and players in the longrun. Certainly, the last CBA should have taught the players that a unified front is essential in matters like this, and when it comes to the olympics, the players and ownership SHOULD be on the same side.

The quality of play was great. The overall effect on the NHL in the US? Notsomuch, I suspect, and the culprits for that are:

1. NBC
2. The IOC
3. The players




4. The NHL



Bettman is right. The NHL absolutely must get more in order to allow players to participate.


And don't try to tell me the NHL is in no position to negotiate when figure skating draws higher ratings. That's irrelevant. If the IOC and/or NBC want NHL players to participate (and I'm not sure if they do, at least not at this price), the NHL should demand a minimum amount of US broadcast exposure. If not, it should walk.

mrzeigler is offline  
Old
03-01-2010, 11:48 AM
  #82
NYR89
Registered User
 
NYR89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,670
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrzeigler View Post
I used to believe this, too. That was, until I got home from Vancouver and found out that at least until Sunday's gold medal game only ONE entire Olympic hockey game (US-Finland) had been broadcast in the US, and that was on an NBC-affiliate cable channel.
That's false. All of the games were on. Some were joined late because of other games running late, but they were on.

NYR89 is offline  
Old
03-01-2010, 12:20 PM
  #83
mrzeigler
Geno and Juss '13
 
mrzeigler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 3,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR89 View Post
That's false. All of the games were on. Some were joined late because of other games running late, but they were on.
So you're saying my statement that only one ENTIRE game was broadcast is correct, then. Thanks for backing me up on this.

I am talking about being broadcast on NBC, not being shuffled to a cable backup station.


Last edited by mrzeigler: 03-01-2010 at 12:26 PM.
mrzeigler is offline  
Old
03-01-2010, 12:25 PM
  #84
Brodie
watcher on the walls
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 12,163
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrzeigler View Post
So you're saying my statement that only one ENTIRE game was broadcast is correct, then. Thanks for backing me up on this.
US-Finland was, in fact, on NBC and not an affiliate channel. And all non-Noon PST games were live nationwide.

Brodie is offline  
Old
03-01-2010, 12:26 PM
  #85
CanadienErrant*
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: Cook Islands
Posts: 4,956
vCash: 500
I did not read the whole thread, and it was possiblyu already written, but...

I would like the World Junior Tournament to be held within the Olypics once every four years. These kids provide great hockey too, and are ''amateur''.

It's like the soccer tournament during summer Olynpics.

Let's keep the Olympics fro the non-pro.

I hate to see pro basketball at Summer games too. Thre is so many great college players in US !

CanadienErrant* is offline  
Old
03-01-2010, 12:42 PM
  #86
crazyforhockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,498
vCash: 500
It could happen very easily even if owners arent excited about sending players..here's how....

Ovie,malkin,Kovy are going ......even if they cant play in the NHL after the Olympics.
so right off the bat you have Pitts,Was and ?? gm's okaying players to the Olympics...

Now if Crosby,Teows,Kane,Keith,Seabrook,Luongo,Doughty,Mi ller,Backstrom,Richards,Stamkos, Parise say they are going no matter what happens---add names as needed then you will have at elast another 7 gms voting to allow the Olympics to happen........

And finally you have a league that would lose the cream of its crop for a season????nice plan Bettman

boy the KHL certainly has a good year finding a home for all those players...wink wink

crazyforhockey is offline  
Old
03-01-2010, 12:46 PM
  #87
Moobles
Registered User
 
Moobles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,552
vCash: 500
Why should the NHL want the Olympics. They're a business.

Moobles is offline  
Old
03-01-2010, 12:57 PM
  #88
ToursLepantoVienna
Registered User
 
ToursLepantoVienna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country:
Posts: 2,007
vCash: 500
I'm still on the fence about NHL participation in Olympic hockey.

I don't like the disruption to the NHL season, but the enthusiasm for Olympic hockey from non-hockey friends, family, and coworkers is compelling. Nothing provides a stage for our sport like the Olympic Games.

However, please remember that the sport and the NHL enjoyed a "perfect storm" scenario: underrated, young American team goes undefeated, and faces Canada's team on its home ice in the Gold medal game, with the honor and pride of the entire nation of Canada, the birthplace and shrine of hockey, at stake. Pretty hard to top that for Olympic drama, and very easy to market it to the non- and casual hockey fan.

That scenario will be almost impossible to duplicate in future Games.

I'll be happy if the NHL can win new American fans by exploiting this brief surge in hockey interest.

ToursLepantoVienna is offline  
Old
03-01-2010, 01:10 PM
  #89
mrzeigler
Geno and Juss '13
 
mrzeigler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 3,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brodie View Post
US-Finland was, in fact, on NBC and not an affiliate channel. And all non-Noon PST games were live nationwide.
And that would make it the ONE complete game broadcast on NBC that I referenced.

Sheesh. Brush up on your reading comprehension skills, buddy.

Nationwide on NBC is much different than nationwide on MSNBC. Not everyone subscribes to cable and not every cable carrier offers it in basic cable packages. The NHL is broadcast nationally on Versus, but plenty of people are screaming for it to be on a station with more clout.

Broadcasting olympics hockey on a station known for the liberal bias of its political coverage is not doing the NHL any favors. For the NHL to get equal value for what it contributes by allowing all of its superstars to risk injury, it must get multiple, complete games on NBC.

I love Olympic hockey and I hope NHL participation continues in 2014, but in this one-sided relationship the NHL shoulders all of the risk and the IOC and players (with their guaranteed contracts) get all the reward in terms of the quality of competition and the nationalistic thrill to play for one's country.

mrzeigler is offline  
Old
03-01-2010, 02:06 PM
  #90
Espher
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Fredericton, N.B.
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,496
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Espher Send a message via AIM to Espher Send a message via MSN to Espher Send a message via Yahoo to Espher
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustapha View Post
I agree. I prefer the NHL to the Olympics anyway, so let the NHL guys play in their league and leave the Olympics to the amateur athletes that are supposed to play it.
I have argued over the past two weeks with enough colleagues that this is an absolutely terrible idea. I can't believe it's still popular.

Espher is offline  
Old
03-01-2010, 02:32 PM
  #91
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ribban View Post
BTW, so after you have concluded that it is not in the best interest of the NHL to have any other country but the North AMericans in the final, and we still should all be excited about having NHL refs in all the games because "they are unbiased and professionals concerned about their careers," you further state that the ratings in the US and Canada would not be there if they were in the finals becasue of time. Little inventions such as DVR, or tape delay, which is used all the time, you dismiss?
If you do a little research and check on ABC and FIFA World Cup, 2014, 2010, 2006, and 2002, you might expand on your options of reality, but then again, you might not. One can lead a horse to water...
I know my opinions don't resonate well with Europeans, who want to believe that the NHL actually views them as a priority. They do not. The priority of the owners, first and foremost, is themselves and their teams. They want to see the league strong in North America. They want to see high TV ratings on NBC for the Olympics. They want the gold medal game in prime-time. And the owners, deep down, want Canada vs. the U.S., because it means strong ratings.

They'll throw the season-opening bone to Europe each year. As for Asia, they don't give a damn, because Asia will never be a strong hockey market. It'll never be a mainstream sport on that continent. You might see a few guys make the show from Asia, but that's it. The sport is never going to be big over there, just like there are sports that are big in Europe and Asia that will never be big in North America. And what the hell does FIFA have to do with any of this? We're talking hockey. Now if you want to talk growth strategies, that's a different story, but you might be in an apples vs. oranges debate.

People may not want to hear it, and he certainly wouldn't admit it, but Gary Bettman was elated to have Canada vs. the U.S. in the gold medal game. The dream match-up on a Sunday afternoon. And it proved to be an outstanding hockey game, an instant classic with all the ingredients that fans look for in a great game.

Deep down, the league doesn't want to send its players halfway around the world in the middle of the season to play games that will start in the middle of the night or early in the morning for North American fans. It's not going to generate the ratings of the interest. The one potentially redeemable factor would be Canada or the U.S. in the final. If it's both, then that's a bonus. But if it's Sweden vs. Russia or Finland vs. Slovakia, or any other European team vs. European team match-up, in the middle of the night, or early in the morning, then a lot of NHL people will view it as a waste.

I'm not saying their philosophy is right. I'm not defending it. I'll watch the gold medal game regardless - as long as it's on at a reasonable time. I'm a fan of great hockey. I'm just pointing out the NHL philosophy.

We just finished a tournament that featured some of the best hockey in years. The hockey won't be as good in Sochi, since it will be played on the big ice. And while I love the difference that big ice creates for international tournaments, it also results in a lower calibre of hockey. I want to see the best players in the game playing in a mid-season tournament every four years. But I don't know if the NHL has much interest in sending its players overseas for a tournament, because I don't know if it will be the payoff like Salt Lake City and Vancouver did.

God Bless Canada is offline  
Old
03-01-2010, 02:34 PM
  #92
garbageteam
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Espher View Post
I have argued over the past two weeks with enough colleagues that this is an absolutely terrible idea. I can't believe it's still popular.
Thing is, it's not popular. Only a select few who are out to lunch and 30 years behind the times still think it's a viable idea when virtually every sport is professional nowadays. Olympics are not for amateurs anymore, get over it. USA gets like 20% of Olympic revenue to fund its athletes, Canada spent over $100 million to "own the podium".

I can see NHL having little incentive from a business standpoint to send their players to Sochi which is a shame. Hockey needs to grow internationally and Olympic tournaments greatly facilitate the sport - the level of success of international soccer probably owes 90% of it to the World Cup. The team owners obviously care little about the sport of hockey (and should rethink why they are even owning a team in the first place if they are strictly in a profit-first mentality - I imagine with their financial resources there are far smarter ways to make money than owning a hockey team) if they aren't willing to sacrifice two weeks of regular season play for the best way to market it globally.

I love hockey, I like the NHL, I watch the games, I buy playoff tickets in the years my team is in it, but I absolutely see no reason why anyone would complain about losing TWO NON-PLAYOFF WEEKS in FOUR YEARS where the absolute best players compete against each other. I'm guessing these people never stepped outside North America and think Africa is a country.


Last edited by garbageteam: 03-01-2010 at 02:53 PM.
garbageteam is offline  
Old
03-01-2010, 03:28 PM
  #93
Ribban
Registered User
 
Ribban's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: USA
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
I know my opinions don't resonate well with Europeans, who want to believe that the NHL actually views them as a priority. They do not. The priority of the owners, first and foremost, is themselves and their teams. They want to see the league strong in North America. They want to see high TV ratings on NBC for the Olympics. They want the gold medal game in prime-time. And the owners, deep down, want Canada vs. the U.S., because it means strong ratings.

They'll throw the season-opening bone to Europe each year. As for Asia, they don't give a damn, because Asia will never be a strong hockey market. It'll never be a mainstream sport on that continent. You might see a few guys make the show from Asia, but that's it. The sport is never going to be big over there, just like there are sports that are big in Europe and Asia that will never be big in North America. And what the hell does FIFA have to do with any of this? We're talking hockey. Now if you want to talk growth strategies, that's a different story, but you might be in an apples vs. oranges debate.

People may not want to hear it, and he certainly wouldn't admit it, but Gary Bettman was elated to have Canada vs. the U.S. in the gold medal game. The dream match-up on a Sunday afternoon. And it proved to be an outstanding hockey game, an instant classic with all the ingredients that fans look for in a great game.

Deep down, the league doesn't want to send its players halfway around the world in the middle of the season to play games that will start in the middle of the night or early in the morning for North American fans. It's not going to generate the ratings of the interest. The one potentially redeemable factor would be Canada or the U.S. in the final. If it's both, then that's a bonus. But if it's Sweden vs. Russia or Finland vs. Slovakia, or any other European team vs. European team match-up, in the middle of the night, or early in the morning, then a lot of NHL people will view it as a waste.

I'm not saying their philosophy is right. I'm not defending it. I'll watch the gold medal game regardless - as long as it's on at a reasonable time. I'm a fan of great hockey. I'm just pointing out the NHL philosophy.

We just finished a tournament that featured some of the best hockey in years. The hockey won't be as good in Sochi, since it will be played on the big ice. And while I love the difference that big ice creates for international tournaments, it also results in a lower calibre of hockey. I want to see the best players in the game playing in a mid-season tournament every four years. But I don't know if the NHL has much interest in sending its players overseas for a tournament, because I don't know if it will be the payoff like Salt Lake City and Vancouver did.
OK. I must have misread something you wrote the first time. I find myself agreeing with what you are writing for the most part... and the FIFA example is simply pointing towards a case of a successful growth strategy as you pointed out. I understand we are talking about two different sports, but from a growth perspective, I'm sure the NHL wouldn't mind landing about 10 million new consuming fans in Asia, which is really nothing considering the population of that continent, but would be a quite healthy boost for the NHL.

My main point is simple. The NHL wants to grow, but it will not do so by showing Washington play the Penguins time after another. Only existing fans will care. To grow the pie, they need to involve other people, which will not happen by running down the same menu it has offered for the last three decades. Give the new blood a reason to care! Why would anybody in Houston, Indiana, Portland, Seattle, Oklahoma, Mexico, Sweden, Switzerland, England, or wherever care? Give them a reason to care, their city, their nation, a local, anything. Make them stake holders! and then... when the gala is over, have a strategy to recruit this new and fragile, interest... curiousity. It takes hard work and a method. A campaign.

The NHL has done NOTHING do deserve growth. The olympics provide an opportunity for the league every four years, IMO. It's not a magic wand. It's a small spark, which will require tender and wood to become a fire. But, the NHL is doing nothing to capitalize on the opportunity, so I will continue to believe that this is nothing but a dog and pony show from Bettman and the GM's for future negotiations.

Ribban is offline  
Old
03-01-2010, 03:31 PM
  #94
Ribban
Registered User
 
Ribban's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: USA
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by garbageteam View Post
Thing is, it's not popular. Only a select few who are out to lunch and 30 years behind the times still think it's a viable idea when virtually every sport is professional nowadays. Olympics are not for amateurs anymore, get over it. USA gets like 20% of Olympic revenue to fund its athletes, Canada spent over $100 million to "own the podium".

I can see NHL having little incentive from a business standpoint to send their players to Sochi which is a shame. Hockey needs to grow internationally and Olympic tournaments greatly facilitate the sport - the level of success of international soccer probably owes 90% of it to the World Cup. The team owners obviously care little about the sport of hockey (and should rethink why they are even owning a team in the first place if they are strictly in a profit-first mentality - I imagine with their financial resources there are far smarter ways to make money than owning a hockey team) if they aren't willing to sacrifice two weeks of regular season play for the best way to market it globally.

I love hockey, I like the NHL, I watch the games, I buy playoff tickets in the years my team is in it, but I absolutely see no reason why anyone would complain about losing TWO NON-PLAYOFF WEEKS in FOUR YEARS where the absolute best players compete against each other. I'm guessing these people never stepped outside North America and think Africa is a country.
Amen! Nothing more can be said. 10 out of 10.

Ribban is offline  
Old
03-01-2010, 03:40 PM
  #95
awesomo
HARD!
 
awesomo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: location, location
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,638
vCash: 500
Apparently Nashville ticket demand went up 11% since the start of the Olympics

Olympic hockey is great for the NHL when its in NA, probably not so great half way around the world. However, you cant just send players when its in NA and not send them when the olympics are in different parts of the world. It just doesnt work that way. I have never heard so much hockey talk ever on sports radio in the US, its been great for hockey in the US imo.

awesomo is offline  
Old
03-01-2010, 03:53 PM
  #96
yada
move 2 dallas 4 work
 
yada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: watching happy pony
Country: United States
Posts: 10,411
vCash: 488
Send a message via Yahoo to yada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blades of Glory View Post
Gary Bettman, whether we like him or not, does bring up some valid points when he claims that the NHL will need to decide whether going to the Olympics is beneficial to the league.

There is no doubt that the NHL benefits from having the games played in North America, where the media devours Olympic ice hockey (yes, even the American media), there is a very irrelevant time difference, and fans have the opportunity to actually witness the games live.

The truth is, for many Americans with jobs, especially 9-5 jobs, the Sochi Olympics are going to be similar to the Torino Olympics; "GO USA! I'll catch the highlights online." Bettman knows this, and he also knows the sport grows most when Americans are watching it. I can honestly tell you that I watched far more of Team Canada than I did of Team USA (live) during these Olympics because the US was playing at noon, and that is simply not going to cut it for many of us. Now, imagine what the hell is going to happen in Sochi, which is what amounts to close to a 9-12 hour difference away from North America? I'm guessing Russia will have the same "prime-time" slot Canada got this year, and American/Canadian games are going to be played at random times of the morning, or very late at night. Is it worth shutting down the league for two weeks for games that are going to be very difficult for the average viewer to watch?

The NHL will go to Sochi. But those of you mindlessly spewing crap over Bettman for "debating" the validity of shutting down an entire league for two weeks, especially for games that are going to be played at a very inaccessible time in North America, need to gain some perspective.

God Bless Canada is spot on.
im agreed 100% with this post. when the time difference was a non factor it is sure easy to say that nhl participation in 2014 is a no brainer without taking the time difference into account. remember what a joke it was for nbc to be showing olympic events on tape delay by only 3 hours to the west coast. well magnify these complaints times 10 when it comes to the russian games. by the time we actually see the games itll be almost a full day since the games were actually played.

edit
even though i agree with the post i want nhl participation.

yada is offline  
Old
03-01-2010, 04:04 PM
  #97
rojac
HFBoards Sponsor
 
rojac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Waterloo, ON
Posts: 6,474
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by awesomo View Post
Apparently Nashville ticket demand went up 11% since the start of the Olympics.
They went from nine fans to ten?

rojac is offline  
Old
03-01-2010, 04:09 PM
  #98
robdicks
Registered User
 
robdicks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Welland ON
Posts: 5,518
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hlundqvist30 View Post
Then he is a ****ing idiot. How was this not good for the sport of hockey? You can't ask for a better game than what we just witnessed, and the whole world was watching it. I'll be furious if the NHL doesn't break for the Olympics in 2014.
only problem is nhl isnt in business to make the sport of hockey better

its in business to make money

robdicks is offline  
Old
03-01-2010, 04:12 PM
  #99
awesomo
HARD!
 
awesomo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: location, location
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,638
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by robdicks View Post
only problem is nhl isnt in business to make the sport of hockey better

its in business to make money
thats their problem. you cant continually profit if you dont build your base

awesomo is offline  
Old
03-01-2010, 04:26 PM
  #100
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rojac View Post
I still say the simple solution is for the IOC to drop hockey from the Winter Olympics. It solves both the competitive problems with women's hockey and the issue of whether or not the NHL should go.
Yeah, the Winter Olympics would just love to drop their biggest and most popular event of the games.

I guess the Summer Olympics should drop track and field as well then.

guest1467 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 06:52 AM.

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.