Bring Back Amateurs to Olympic Hockey

I dont give a **** what the Olympic s want or the NHL , Canada shouls send Non NHLERS in the future.

They will represent our flag with pride - win or lose

You think they could have gotten 7th ( like this years team of floaters)????

not again. Seriously, this is the 274773th thread on this issue.

:biglaugh:

I knew it was only a matter of time.

Ban USA and Canada from the Olympics. :jump:

Dont get me started - dont disrespect this thread - I am not happy with this whole debocle

If Canada just wants a bunch of guys to go to the Olympics, work their tails off and fight, you can find plenty of Shane Doan-type Canadian character guys around NHL - its up to you whom to choose for your team, isn't it?

Gah - why on earth would I want to watch the 755th-900th best players in the world?

Can't I just go down and watch the local pee-wee game?

Amateurs ...NO way.

It should be like soccer in the Olympics (Under 22 years old). These millionaires don't need to a Gold Medal. Leave the Olympics to the young up and coming non NHL players. Then bring back the World Cup as a tournamnet for the best of the best.

Ban USA and Canada from the Olympics. :jump:


I'm an American and I wish that would happen. Please don't subject us to this torture again, win or lose.

Amateurs ...NO way.

It should be like soccer in the Olympics (Under 22 years old). These millionaires don't need to a Gold Medal. Leave the Olympics to the young up and coming non NHL players. Then bring back the World Cup as a tournamnet for the best of the best.

Hockey is to small for that.
If you set up a World Cup similar to soccer for hockey, you play in front of empty ranks. Embedded in the winter olympics, you get a lot of traffic and things like boosting italy with their courageous effort happen.

Do you think anyone would have noticed Italy if they appeared in a world cup? Hardly. The situation is similar to basketball.

Football is the only truly global sport.

Hockey is to small for that.
If you set up a World Cup similar to soccer for hockey, you play in front of empty ranks. Embedded in the winter olympics, you get a lot of traffic and things like boosting italy with their courageous effort happen.

Do you think anyone would have noticed Italy if they appeared in a world cup? Hardly. The situation is similar to basketball.

Football is the only truly global sport.

Not if you only play in Hockey mad countries...Canada,Sweden, Finland or Russia.

Hockey will never be a global sport simply for the reason it's played on ice. Seems to me when The Canada Cup had it's run the buildings were full every game.

It'll happen, a lot of NHL owners are already pissed off with losing players for nothing.

I'm an American and I wish that would happen. Please don't subject us to this torture again, win or lose.

I was joking.

btw Noticed Eric Cole? Tell you what, he played in Berlin and won the DEL championship last year, and i bet he gained a perspective on all of this by going abroad. He was propably the best american forward, and in my oppinion that has something to do with that experience.

It's typical. Europeans go to the NHL and learn. Then they return to their National Squads and combine both worlds to bring out the best of it. You got to get some kind of impulses yourselves imho.

Not if you only play in Hockey mad countries...Canada,Sweden, Finland or Russia.

Hockey will never be a global sport simply for the reason it's played on ice. Seems to me when The Canada Cup had it's run the buildings were full every game.

Thats not adressing the problem.

The world cup wasn't evn shown on TV in germany. And germany has one of the major leagues in europe. It's only canada thats this big with hockey.

Football fills 100.000 seat and TV companies kill for broadcasting rights - everywhere.

Thats not adressing the problem.

The world cup wasn't evn shown on TV in germany. And germany has one of the major leagues in europe. It's only canada thats this big with hockey.

Football fills 100.000 seat and TV companies kill for broadcasting rights - everywhere.

Keep telling yourself that. Your telling me the Russinas, Swedes and Finns don't care about hockey. :biglaugh:

Germany on the other hand is much different story. I am almost sure Hockey is the low man on the totem poll. Soccer in Germany dominates the press and is by far and wide the mainstream sport.

The Football World Cup is 10 times as big as the whole Olympics.

It's like 6 weeks of Superbowl.

No city on this planet could host a football world cup and olympic games at the same time.

As i said, Basketball and Ice hockey have pretty much the same olympic status.

If you move hockey out of the olympics, you basically hide it.

not again. Seriously, this is the 274773th thread on this issue.

well actually they've improved a little : they want Canadian amateurs only :biglaugh:

I was joking.

btw Noticed Eric Cole? Tell you what, he played in Berlin and won the DEL championship last year, and i bet he gained a perspective on all of this by going abroad. He was propably the best american forward, and in my oppinion that has something to do with that experience.

It's typical. Europeans go to the NHL and learn. Then they return to their National Squads and combine both worlds to bring out the best of it. You got to get some kind of impulses yourselves imho.

I know you were joking but I really wasn't. I find Olympic hockey with professionals to be unbearable to watch.

A serious question though, no disrespect, because English may be your second language, but I don't understand what you mean in the last sentence above. Can you please explain.

Thanks

If you move hockey out of the olympics, you basically hide it.

Maybe so. Bringing 'amateurs' would probably hide
it too. Personally I want to see the stars.

What would the alpine sports in the Olympics
be without their biggest stars? Or skiing?
What would the value of an Olympic Gold be
without the best participating?

The Football World Cup is 10 times as big as the whole Olympics.

It's like 6 weeks of Superbowl.

No city on this planet could host a football world cup and olympic games at the same time.

As i said, Basketball and Ice hockey have pretty much the same olympic status.

If you move hockey out of the olympics, you basically hide it.


How do you hide it.

So some guy in Kenya doesn't get to watch Hockey...I don't think he cares at all.

People who like hockey will watch and people who don't, won't. Do you think people from non traditional hockey contries after seeing a few olympic hocket games will now have hockey fever...I doubt it.

A World Cup of hockey makes sense. Teams will have healthy rosters, will be able to build chemistry through practing with each other, and will not have to worry about travel.

I know you were joking but I really wasn't. I find Olympic hockey with professionals to be unbearable to watch.

A serious question though, no disrespect, because English may be your second language, but I don't understand what you mean in the last sentence above. Can you please explain.

Thanks

What i meant is the pupil beating the master. The NHL used to be the place where hockey was on a whole new higher level. But with lots of foreigners playing there, the know-how got transfered. The foreign players who play in the nhl and return to their home countries to represent them internationally use both, their roots and the abroad experience. While the Ameri/Canadian NHL STARS know nothing but the NHL. You would be better of using folks who have been to world championships for example. Or Andy Roach / Stepahane Julien type of guys. NHL Stars only isn't a healty environment for sucess. It's pretty much the same what happened to the Basketball Dreamteam imho.

What i meant is the pupil beating the master. The NHL used to be the place where hockey was on a whole new higher level. But with lots of foreigners playing there, the know-how got transfered. The foreign players who play in the nhl and return to their home countries to represent them internationally use both, their roots and the abroad experience. While the Ameri/Canadian NHL STARS know nothing but the NHL. You would be better of using folks who have been to world championships for example. Or Andy Roach / Stepahane Julien type of guys. NHL Stars only isn't a healty environment for sucess. It's pretty much the same what happened to the Basketball Dreamteam imho.


Here is the problem. You seem to assume that anyone who enjoys NHL hockey more than international hockey is wrong or less evolved for feeling that way. (Your recently closed thread is exhibit A)

I don't care one bit about how team USA does in the Olympics, and haven't since they let NHL'ers in. There are several players on the team that I simply cannot root for because of my hatred for their NHL team or their actions in the NHL.

I have rooted for the Boston Bruins since I was 7 years old. The 1980 U.S. gold medal was one of the greatest memories of my childhood and looking back it was only that enjoyable and memorable because the players on that team were college kids who overachieved and made the most of their talents. Almost as important, none of them had played in the NHL for opposing teams and I hadn't developed a dislike for them.

If you expect me to ignore hockey for another 4 years because that is when the next Olympics take place then you are the one who doesn't understand sports. I will continue to root for the Bruins first, last and always. I cannot root for Chris Chelios just because he happens to be one of 350 million people who happened to be born within the same border as me, regardless of what team he plays for. (If he were to play for the Bruins, the only way I could find it in my heart to root for him is if he helped bring a Stanley Cup.)

I don't care if the American players adopt a style of hockey that will help them be more successful in the Olympics. I don't care about Olympic hockey but unlike you I'm not judging those who feel differently. You like it, great. But that doesn't make you any better or worse a sports fan than I.

Just because our Canadian pros were largely heartless doesn't mean that's the case with others. Sweden, Russia and Finland don't seem to have any problems with playing with pride, even though they're mostly NHLers. Canada sucked this time around. That's not a good reason to change the nature of the tournament.

Sarge88 this is simple.

Subjectively you might be more interested in your league. I don't give a damn because i care about my league.

The Olympics is, objectively, a higher level than your and my league. It is inter-national which means "between nations" which makes all Americans unite behind one Club calles Team USA no matter what city the players are employed at during normal life.

You don't get that concept and that is why your team is out. The players didn't have the support they need. Neither by their clubs, who should have released them a week prior to the games, not their coaching staff who should have prepared them for the evetn, nor by the fans who should support their teams instead of dismissing them after putting up a hell of a fight.

I'm glad that countries advanced that apreciate it.

Dont get me started - dont disrespect this thread - I am not happy with this whole debocleSo why not simply continue one of the 24589 threads on the top....There is a tool called "SEARCH"...

First of all, taking the pro's out is short-sighted for the game, and will cripple it's growth in non-hockey countries.

You have to understand that the olympics reaches out to a world audience, and the World Cup (while I prefer hockey on smaller ice) simply does not. Outside of Canada, only Sweden and Finland show any interest in the World Cup, for the rest, it is off the radar (yes, I mean in Slovakia, Czech Republic, Russia, Germany, and of course the USA).

Second of all - where are we going to find 'amateurs' anyways? There are hardly any left in Europe and the ones here in North America are college kids...

Every other Olympic sport uses pros, so you want to make hockey the joke of the entire summer and winter olympic movement by reducing them to non-pros...

Seriously, think of the big picture (ie, the world)....

Spungo is that you?

Sarge88 this is simple.

Subjectively you might be more interested in your league. I don't give a damn because i care about my league.

The Olympics is, objectively, a higher level than your and my league. It is inter-national which means "between nations" which makes all Americans unite behind one Club calles Team USA no matter what city the players are employed at during normal life.

You don't get that concept and that is why your team is out. The players didn't have the support they need. Neither by their clubs, who should have released them a week prior to the games, not their coaching staff who should have prepared them for the evetn, nor by the fans who should support their teams instead of dismissing them after putting up a hell of a fight.

I'm glad that countries advanced that apreciate it.

This is also simple. Just because you say that the Olympics are important doesn't mean that you can tell me who to root for and how much I should support them in an endeavor of which I don't care.

That is the height of arrogance. I will never, support or root for people/players like Chris Chelios, Jason Blake or Doug Weight regardless of whether or not we share a heritage. They will have to not only become Boston Bruins for me to support them, but they will need to excel as Boston Bruins for me to do so.

I dislike people that I work with, live near and encounter on a daily basis (as do most people) are you going to tell me that I should start liking them because they are Americans just like me?

Lastly, I didn't dismiss the team after they put up a "hell of a fight", I didn't care about them from the day they were forced to be a "team".

I sense some sour grapes.

I sense some sour grapes.


Would I rather have seen the US win? Sure, but in general I don't really care either way.

What really bothers me though, is people with "holier than thou" attitudes pontificating on and on about the merits of the sacred Olympics and telling me that I am wrong for considering Olympic hockey to be secondary to the league and team that I follow 12 months a year, every year, instead of the one I'm supposed to worship for 2 weeks every fourth February.

I dont give a **** what the Olympic s want or the NHL , Canada shouls send Non NHLERS in the future.

They will represent our flag with pride - win or lose

You think they could have gotten 7th ( like this years team of floaters)????
I have had enough of this crap. I would prefer if Jan Alston is not Canada's go to guy. Enough anti NHL talk. I am a fan of Canada and whenever you take the ice there is a chance you will lose. Russia look like they could win this tourney.

Would I rather have seen the US win? Sure, but in general I don't really care either way.

What really bothers me though, is people with "holier than thou" attitudes pontificating on and on about the merits of the sacred Olympics and telling me that I am wrong for considering Olympic hockey to be secondary to the league and team that I follow 12 months a year, every year, instead of the one I'm supposed to worship for 2 weeks every fourth February.

Well, both of you have a point. You, obviously, make a logical case for placing a priority on the more ubiquitous event--if you can call it that. I understand that. But Olympimaniacs also have a valid point: this is a time for an entire country to go past its internal differences and unite in a moment of national pride and, of course, quality hockey. Nothing wrong with that. But, because of different backgrounds and cultures, we must expect people from different countries and continents, of course, to have different attitudes.

As a Czech and Slovak, for instance, I feel tremendous pride when either of my teams--representive 10mn and 5mn people respectively--skate on the ice to compete, and even prevail, against traditional powerhouses like the US, Russia and Canada. The Czechs and the Slovaks were historically underdogs--battled with oppression since the first millenium AD, essentially. It gives my people great pride to see us fare well. The same can be said of the Germans, who have had their struggles--and the Swiss, who aren't by any means a historically strong hockey nation. And so on, and so forth...

Well, both of you have a point. You, obviously, make a logical case for placing a priority on the more ubiquitous event--if you can call it that. I understand that. But Olympimaniacs also have a valid point: this is a time for an entire country to go past its internal differences and unite in a moment of national pride and, of course, quality hockey. Nothing wrong with that. But, because of different backgrounds and cultures, we must expect people from different countries and continents, of course, to have different attitudes.

As a Czech and Slovak, for instance, I feel tremendous pride when either of my teams--representive 10mn and 5mn people respectively--skate on the ice to compete, and even prevail, against traditional powerhouses like the US, Russia and Canada. The Czechs and the Slovaks were historically underdogs--battled with oppression since the first millenium AD, essentially. It gives my people great pride to see us fare well. The same can be said of the Germans, who have had their struggles--and the Swiss, who aren't by any means a historically strong hockey nation. And so on, and so forth...
I will speak for this Canadian and tell you I take tremendous pride in my National team. I am a Leaf fan and look forward to international tourneys because there is a greater chance to actually win and not just win but a win for Canada. I was walking the streets after Canada won the 2004 World Cup and I saw plenty of national pride. What we have are a few babies here who cannot accept losing. You do not have to like losing but it must be taken with a certain degree of grace.

I will speak for this Canadian and tell you I take tremendous pride in my National team. I am a Leaf fan and look forward to international tourneys because there is a greater chance to actually win and not just win but a win for Canada. I was walking the streets after Canada won the 2004 World Cup and I saw plenty of national pride. What we have are a few babies here who cannot except losing. You do not have to like losing but it must be taken with a certain degree of grace.

Frankly, this is music to my ears. I'd be concerned if a country as great as Canada didn't have great national pride to go with it. There is reason.

Well, both of you have a point. You, obviously, make a logical case for placing a priority on the more ubiquitous event--if you can call it that. I understand that. But Olympimaniacs also have a valid point: this is a time for an entire country to go past its internal differences and unite in a moment of national pride and, of course, quality hockey. Nothing wrong with that. But, because of different backgrounds and cultures, we must expect people from different countries and continents, of course, to have different attitudes.

As a Czech and Slovak, for instance, I feel tremendous pride when either of my teams--representive 10mn and 5mn people respectively--skate on the ice to compete, and even prevail, against traditional powerhouses like the US, Russia and Canada. The Czechs and the Slovaks were historically underdogs--battled with oppression since the first millenium AD, essentially. It gives my people great pride to see us fare well. The same can be said of the Germans, who have had their struggles--and the Swiss, who aren't by any means a historically strong hockey nation. And so on, and so forth...


My problem isn't with anyone choosing to root for their national team first and foremost. My issue is with people telling me that I am wrong for feeling differently.

What many europeans tend to overlook is that most NHL teams have a following that is similar to that of most European National teams. The Bruins are the primary team for the large majority of the 6 New England states. The population of those 6 states is around 15 million. The Bruins, to me and many others are what team Finland is to a Finn and what Team Germany is to the Germans.

Team USA is simply a collection of players that I probably spend the majority of the time rooting against, to a very passionate degree.

I'd rather be considered a jerk for stating how I really feel, than know that I'm a fraud for pretending to root for players that I spend countless hours rooting against.

In the end, I find Olympic hockey to be utterly unwatchable, I despise the style of play that dominates the game, but I won't tell you or anyone else that you are wrong for enjoying it.

What many europeans tend to overlook is that most NHL teams have a following that is similar to that of most European National teams. The Bruins are the primary team for the large majority of the 6 New England states. The population of those 6 states is around 15 million. The Bruins, to me and many others are what team Finland is to a Finn and what Team Germany is to the Germans.

This isn't really correct, as NHL hockey is only a lesser sport in the usa compared to football, basketball and baseball. So you can't say there root 15 million for the bruins. For sure there are less then 15 million hockey fans in Germany but with the olympics the whole country follow the German athlets. You have 6 to 8,5 millions Germans watching the olympic games and rooting for the Germans, whatever event it is, if it's figuere scating, biathlon, skiing or hockey.
For the rest of your argument I can't say much, but my impression was that there are plenty of Americans rooting for Team USA despite their normal fan being :dunno: .

This isn't really correct, as NHL hockey is only a lesser sport in the usa compared to football, basketball and baseball. So you can't say there root 15 million for the bruins. For sure there are less then 15 million hockey fans in Germany but with the olympics the whole country follow the German athlets. You have 6 to 8,5 millions Germans watching the olympic games and rooting for the Germans, whatever event it is, if it's figuere scating, biathlon, skiing or hockey.
For the rest of your argument I can't say much, but my impression was that there are plenty of Americans rooting for Team USA despite their normal fan being :dunno: .


Valid point, but I can't imagine that every German, Czeck, Finn or Swede is following Olympic hockey as ardently as those of us who post here. Just as a large majority of people here don't follow the Bruins.

I was just making a loose comparison using similar demographics.

Yeah, you're more right than I've ever expected, I found the numbers of the two German tv stations ARD & ZDF (in million):

Source: http://www.quotenmeter.de/

ITA-CAN 2,01
SWE-KAZ 3,58
GER-CZE 3,57
RUS-SVK 2,55

SWE-RUS: 2,77
CAN-GER: 2,32

ITA-GER 4,89
CAN-SUI 3,13

RUS-LAT 2,58
USA-SWE 2,04
CZE-ITA 1,68
FIN-CAN 1,25

GER-FIN: 2,78
USA-RUS: 2,13

SUI-SWE 1,61
FIN-USA 1,5
RUS-CAN 1,86

Note: Missing are the ORF (Austria) and DRS2 (Switzerland) for south Germans like me and Eurosport (German language area), who showed hockey, too. I've no clue what their numbers look like :dunno:

For the tv-coverage respective ARD and ZDF you need to say that the barely showed hockey live (even the German matches), instead they showed a third and then hockey roundups(?), all too often after 9 or 10 p.m :cry: .

Every game of team SUI was shown live on at least one Swiss channel.
In adition to that, a few of the other games are also shown. Mostly on the french- or italian-speaking channel.

My guess is that about 10-12% of the population watched the games with the SUI team. There is of course the problem that the games were played during working hours. A lot of people can't watch the games live because of that.

I'd be happy to restrict it to any player 23 and under. I'd also expect the NHL teams to keep playing during the tournament instead of taking an insane compressed schedule. Give the players a couple extra days up front for a practice or two as well.

The other benefit would be that the team selection would be much more limited. 90% of the team would be selected and play together during the mini-camp in the summer.

Young, hungry, enthusiastic, patriotic. What's not to like?

Maybe the U-23 rule should be for the NA teams (based on this years play). Cause not every 30+ year old plays without heart. Players like Kozlov are playing way better than in the NHL. Datsyuk too.

I just think that returning to amateurs would make the Olympic Gold a not very prized medal.

Maybe the U-23 rule should be for the NA teams (based on this years play). Cause not every 30+ year old plays without heart. Players like Kozlov are playing way better than in the NHL. Datsyuk too.

I just think that returning to amateurs would make the Olympic Gold a not very prized medal.

I think winning a gold medal means a LOT more to a 22 y/o amateur player as compared to a guy that spends all of a week preparing for this tournament during the SUMMER and then gets to go back to his day-job where he's earning millions.

The best olympic hockey tournament i've seen in my life was '94... and it isn't as if there was a lack of future names in that tourney either.

In 1994 though most of the European players were still amateurs (I think) and Canada and the US had National Teams for whole seasons (like Lafontaine in 1984) and most of the guys in those Olympics were from Europe. I think that in the 1994 Olympics European Based players were allowed but not NHL players.

But if we went to amateurs there would be no European Based players (well, atleast not from the top Leagues) and no NHL players. The quality wouldnt be that great. It could mean much to the players involved but who would want to watch an Olympic tourney where only 3rd/4th Leaguers from Europe are playing and college players from the US?

Maybe the U-23 rule should be for the NA teams (based on this years play). Cause not every 30+ year old plays without heart. Players like Kozlov are playing way better than in the NHL. Datsyuk too.

I just think that returning to amateurs would make the Olympic Gold a not very prized medal.
You certainly couldn't have different rules for different countries. :shakehead

Adding in any player over 23 who is making less than the NHL average salary might be an option. It would limit the impact on NHL teams. Any rule against NHLers but not RSL players makes no sense. Player's can earn similar money in each league.

In 1994 though most of the European players were still amateurs (I think)Most of them were pros. Probably all of them in the top teams.

Well no player on team sweden was an amateur. They were either SEL pro's or former NHL-pros the lot of them. The SEL wasn't as professionalised in those days but it still was an elite league. There were no "kids" in that tournament, and in no tournaments before it. Besides, this entire argument builds on that every other pro league in the world just goes on full halt every year there is an olympic tournament. They don't. They have a break too, but it's not like the players spend all year practising with the national team.

I don't want any 23 yrs age limit. That'd turn the olympics into another WJC tournament, which nobody gives a toss about except NHL fans who want to see what their draft picks are capable of. the US and Canada, and to some extent Russia, are the only nations with player depth enough to ice competitive teams with an age limit. Sweden, Finland, Cze & Slo are totally dependant on access to older players.

I understand why the NHL, as a business, doesn't like the olympic pro involvement. however, I can't understand how hockey FANS can be against it.

I understand why the NHL, as a business, doesn't like the olympic pro involvement. however, I can't understand how hockey FANS can be against it.

cuz i'd rather be watching Flyers v. Rangers/Devils/Toronto/etc. tonight.

cuz i'd rather be watching Flyers v. Rangers/Devils/Toronto/etc. tonight.
You will get your fill of that in a few days.

Amateurs ...NO way.

It should be like soccer in the Olympics (Under 22 years old). These millionaires don't need to a Gold Medal. Leave the Olympics to the young up and coming non NHL players. Then bring back the World Cup as a tournamnet for the best of the best.

No one takes the football tournament at the olympics seriously.

You will get your fill of that in a few days.

that has nothing to do with why i'm not a fan of the NHL shutting down for the Olympics... it's a very simple question.

it's wed. night... you just got back from work, what would you rather watch?

option A) Olympic game (likely taped)

option B) NHL game (in my case the Flyers v. whoever)

i choose the Flyers EVERY time... even if the olympic game is live.

You certainly couldn't have different rules for different countries. :shakehead

Adding in any player over 23 who is making less than the NHL average salary might be an option. It would limit the impact on NHL teams. Any rule against NHLers but not RSL players makes no sense. Player's can earn similar money in each league.
I know there cant be.

But its not like every country played without desire like Canada did. You said that only U-23 year old's should go. But why couldnt an older player go?

I'll repost what I posted in the NHL Board thread on this topic:

Here's what I've concluded: people only know about the Miracle on Ice and nothing else pre-1998, so they assume that the only pro athletes in the Olympics are the ones from North American team pro sports leagues (NHL, NBA, etc.) and that everyone else, and everyone beforehand, were "amateurs" because the 1980 US team was. There's no other explanation to how people can misunderstand this "pros vs. amateurs" nonsense as much as they do.

I'll repost what I posted in the NHL Board thread on this topic:

Here's what I've concluded: people only know about the Miracle on Ice and nothing else pre-1998, so they assume that the only pro athletes in the Olympics are the ones from North American team pro sports leagues (NHL, NBA, etc.) and that everyone else, and everyone beforehand, were "amateurs" because the 1980 US team was. There's no other explanation to how people can misunderstand this "pros vs. amateurs" nonsense as much as they do.


I think people do, they just tend to say professionals when they are referring to NHL professionals or NBA or MLB.

Most people are aware that "professionals" from European countries were competing in the Olympics from the beginning, it is just a semantical point.

Speaking for myself, I don't want NHL'ers playing in the Olympics. It negatively impacts the NHL season, which is the only one that I personally care about.

Team USA doesn't represent me because Team USA is made up of a collection of players who I generally dislike because they play for teams that I dislike in the NHL.

I know I'm not in the majority on this issue, but I guarantee there are others who have a similar opinion. One which is just dismissed out of hand by the majority of people who are beholden to Olympic hockey.

Well, I am an American and I rather have the best of the best playing at the Olympics. This is about showing the world our talent right then why go with amateurs? And it is not as if they dont want to go to the Olympics. they did ask for it in their contracts. The only thing is that the NHL should give the players more days off so they have more time to practice.

And I love it how people give 1980 as an example to proove their points. I dont think people realize 1980 will never happen again.

I think people do, they just tend to say professionals when they are referring to NHL professionals or NBA or MLB.

And I think that's quite disrespectful!

i reason i prefer amateurs is simply that they are a team. They practice together for quite a while and form a team atmosphere. Players know what their roles are and are more like a well oiled machine.

i reason i prefer amateurs is simply that they are a team. They practice together for quite a while and form a team atmosphere. Players know what their roles are and are more like a well oiled machine.
Are you suggesting we revisit the National team setup of years gone by? Dave King and the boys roaming the earth looking for games in Budapest and Heerenveen.

And I think that's quite disrespectful!


I don't mean that they say it in a conscious manner or to be disrespectful.

Just in natural conversation, when someone from North America says pros they are usually referring to pros in the NHL, which is the league that they usually follow.

When a German uses the german word for "professionals" I woud assume they are referring to professionals in Germany not Sweden, Russia, Finland or anywhere else.

These millionaires don't need to a Gold Medal.

What does that have to do with anything?

There was a skiier who won a gold medal last week who started an internet company and is estimated to be worth something like $30 million. Just because you make money it doesn't make you any less entitled to represent your country and compete for a gold medal.

Anyway, Canadians always do this. This knee jerk/sky is falling reaction. The thing is, the Canadia national team being upset isn't new, but every time it happens its presented as the greatest disaster in history. This happened in Nagano in 98, it happened when they were hammered by the Soviets in the first game of the Summit Series in 72, and its happening now. Hell, it happened when the junior team lost to Kazakhstan that one time.

This kind of thing will happen again in 10 years, and once again it will be deemed the worst thing to have ever happened in Canadian hockey. Just because they lost it doesn't mean they don't care. They'll be back right in the mix for gold in four years, forget this reverting to amateur stuff. Its not like Canada had any success under that format, anyway.

Just in natural conversation, when someone from North America says pros they are usually referring to pros in the NHL, which is the league that they usually follow.

When a German uses the german word for "professionals" I woud assume they are referring to professionals in Germany not Sweden, Russia, Finland or anywhere else.
You would be wrong, it's typically North American.

You would be wrong, it's typically North American.

I agree, a Pro for a German is a paid athlet, we even talk about pro soccer in the USA ;)

I don't know why so many mainly North American fans want junior or bush players at the olympics. Effort isn't something about age or salary, look at the Sundins, Koivus, Kozlovs, Richters and Smyths. If the Canadiens think their team will be better if they play their Under-23 team or EURO-Canadiens, fine. But don't press the other teams in this direction. I want "my" Swedes and Germans with the best players available, no matter what age or league. That's how it should be IMO.

You would be wrong, it's typically North American.


So if you're sitting in a bar in Germany and the guy next to you says (in German, of course) I can't believe these pro-athletes today they all ...................

You automatically think of pro-athletes in the global sense and not the professional athletes in Germany?

So if you're sitting in a bar in Germany and the guy next to you says (in German, of course) I can't believe these pro-athletes today they all ...................

You automatically think of pro-athletes in the global sense and not the professional athletes in Germany?
Of course? A pro is a pro. A welder is a welder. If I speak in a bar about Swedish professionals, I say "Swedish professionals." If I just say "professionals", my friends would assume I meant "professionals as a general, regardless of nationality and regardless of sport." (if I haven't already mentioned which sport)

If you say "Amateurs should play in Olympics", I think that you mean that amateurs should participate in Olympics, when you really mean "No NHL players should participate, but professionals outside of NHL can"?

Amateurism in the Olympics was always a wobbly sham and I'm amazed that they have managed to juice this concept as long as they have.

Of course? A pro is a pro. A welder is a welder. If I speak in a bar about Swedish professionals, I say "Swedish professionals." If I just say "professionals", my friends would assume I meant "professionals as a general, regardless of nationality."


What happens if the guy says -- "can you believe what happened in the game last night?"

Do you find yourself confused as to whether he is referring to a goal scored by a Nigerian soccer player in club play, a three point shot by Kobe Bryant or a homerun hit by my 16 year old cousin in his high school baseball game?

A game is a game.

What happens if the guy says -- "can you believe what happened in the game last night?"

Do you find yourself confused as to whether he is referring to a goal scored by a Nigerian soccer player in club play, a three point shot by Kobe Bryant or a homerun hit by my 16 year old cousin in his high school baseball game?

A game is a game.
My answer is quite obivous. If he is sure I know which game he is talking about, he won't say anything more than what you said. However, if there were 4 quarter finals AND a champion's league football game on TV yesterday, he will probably specify which game he's talking about.

If your argument is "No NHL pro's should play in the Olympics", don't write "No pro's should play in the Olympics", as this is implying no pro should play in the Olympics, not even those outside of NHL.

Because you say "play", I'm quite sure you are focusing on hockey. If you would have written "participate", I wouldn't be sure if you meant the other sports as well.

I dont give a **** what the Olympic s want or the NHL , Canada shouls send Non NHLERS in the future.

They will represent our flag with pride - win or lose

You think they could have gotten 7th ( like this years team of floaters)????

I hope you never post again. Ever.

My answer is quite obivous. If he is sure I know which game he is talking about, he won't say anything more than what you said. However, if there was 4 quarter finals AND a champion's league football game on TV yesterday, he will probably specify which game he's talking about.

So you've made my original point. When I am speaking to someone that I am familiar with and who I know follows the NHL, NBA, MLB or NFL and I say "pros" they obviously understand that I am referring to the "pros" in those leagues and not players from the Swedish Elite League, the CFL or any other "professional" league.

If I was sitting in a bar in London, I wouldn't be as vague in conversation with someone I just met. If I wanted to talk about professional sports in that situation, I say what do you think of the NBA playoffs. Not a general how have you enjoyed the basketball playoffs.

So you've made my original point. When I am speaking to someone that I am familiar with and who I know follows the NHL, NBA, MLB or NFL and I say "pros" they obviously understand that I am referring to the "pros" in those leagues and not players from the Swedish Elite League, the CFL or any other "professional" league.

If I was sitting in a bar in London, I wouldn't be as vague in conversation with someone I just met. If I wanted to talk about professional sports in that situation, I say what do you think of the NBA playoffs. Not a general how have you enjoyed the basketball playoffs.

But those are national leagues, not an international tournament. So if someone say, ban pro's from the olympics, it isn't unresonable to think that you mean all pro's and not just pro's from one place and not another.

But those are national leagues, not an international tournament. So if someone say, ban pro's from the olympics, it isn't unresonable to think that you mean all pro's and not just pro's from one place and not another.

Exactly. At least I understood it that way but maybe it's just because I'm dumb...

This thread is crap, If Canada doesn't win Gold they don't want NHLers because theyre clearly better than the rest. However if their were no NHLers and Canada didn't win Gold they'd want NHLers cause they have the best players. Just whinning from Canada.

Sore loohooseheer

NHLPA president Trevor Linden, Canuck coach Marc Crawford, and Canucks GM Dave Nonis (even after losing Ohlund and Salo) were on local radio yesterday and each said (in separate interviews) that something has to be done about the schedule for the Vancouver games in 2010. But that overall, they favor Olympic participation by the NHL.

All three also mentioned that Olympic participation is great for the game in terms of expanding it's popularity worldwide ("it is not only Canada's game anymore"), and Linden also made the point (that I have been making ad naseum here) that the World Cup is not prestigious outside Canada, and to a smaller extent Sweden and Finland (eg, the Czechs have failed to sell-out a game in 2 tournaments), and it would be a step-backwards to stop Olympic participation and revert to a World Cup. :clap:

This thread is crap, If Canada doesn't win Gold they don't want NHLers because theyre clearly better than the rest. However if their were no NHLers and Canada didn't win Gold they'd want NHLers cause they have the best players. Just whinning from Canada.

i've been against the NHLers going from the start...

NHLPA president Trevor Linden, Canuck coach Marc Crawford, and Canucks GM Dave Nonis (even after losing Ohlund and Salo) were on local radio yesterday and each said (in separate interviews) that something has to be done about the schedule for the Vancouver games in 2010. But that overall, they favor Olympic participation by the NHL.

All three also mentioned that Olympic participation is great for the game in terms of expanding it's popularity worldwide ("it is not only Canada's game anymore"), and Linden also made the point (that I have been making ad naseum here) that the World Cup is not prestigious outside Canada, and to a smaller extent Sweden and Finland (eg, the Czechs have failed to sell-out a game in 2 tournaments), and it would be a step-backwards to stop Olympic participation and revert to a World Cup. :clap:

Obviously. If you stop participating in the Olympics that makes the World Cup a bigger deal since it will be the only tournament with the elite players. If you participate in both... obviously one is going to be viewed as better than the other.

Take the World Cup, increase IIHF participation in the operation of the tournament and make it into a better world tournament.

News Flash: It hasn't been "only" Canada's game for a while... NHL participation in the Olympics has had NOTHING to do with that development.

Obviously. If you stop participating in the Olympics that makes the World Cup a bigger deal since it will be the only tournament with the elite players. If you participate in both... obviously one is going to be viewed as better than the other.

Take the World Cup, increase IIHF participation in the operation of the tournament and make it into a better world tournament.



No IIHF participation will make the World Cup a more prestigious tournament. It's held towards the end summer, no one cares about hockey then. No one cared about the World Cup in 1996 either.

Obviously. If you stop participating in the Olympics that makes the World Cup a bigger deal since it will be the only tournament with the elite players. If you participate in both... obviously one is going to be viewed as better than the other.

Take the World Cup, increase IIHF participation in the operation of the tournament and make it into a better world tournament.

News Flash: It hasn't been "only" Canada's game for a while... NHL participation in the Olympics has had NOTHING to do with that development.
It will take decades for the World Cup to build itself up to reach even a tenth of the global reach the Olympics does. Why take a step backwards when you have something already here that works (and only needs to be tweaked in terms of scheduling)?

Don't get me wrong, I prefer small ice hockey, but the World Cup has no credibility outside the 3 countries I mentioned above (Canada, Sweden, and Finland). It has not been held on regular intervals, and it always in one country. While I prefer both tournmanents (more hockey!), the NHLPA leary of overexposure of the international game, so if I had to make a choice, the Olympics serves hockey better.

I equate those who think that the World Cup should be the premiere elite event with those who do not care about hockey's growth outside it's established countries. It is cleary a step in the wrong direction.

Obviously. If you stop participating in the Olympics that makes the World Cup a bigger deal since it will be the only tournament with the elite players. If you participate in both... obviously one is going to be viewed as better than the other.

I don't think that the World Cup will ever gain the respect what the Olympics have, in Europe. Not even if NHLer wouldn't participate to olympics. I'm sure that World Cup would be a big tournament also for european palyers but majority of european spectators would still prefer even World Champions over World Cup.

Hockey just doesn't belong to summer.

I dont give a **** what the Olympic s want or the NHL , Canada shouls send Non NHLERS in the future.

They will represent our flag with pride - win or lose

You think they could have gotten 7th ( like this years team of floaters)????


Did you have this same issues four years ago when you and the rest of Canada celebrated a gold medal? Funny how the amatuer issue only comes up after we lose, but not after winning a gold.

It will take decades for the World Cup to build itself up to reach even a tenth of the global reach the Olympics does. Why take a step backwards when you have something already here that works (and only needs to be tweaked in terms of scheduling)?

Don't get me wrong, I prefer small ice hockey, but the World Cup has no credibility outside the 3 countries I mentioned above (Canada, Sweden, and Finland). It has not been held on regular intervals, and it always in one country. While I prefer both tournmanents (more hockey!), the NHLPA leary of overexposure of the international game, so if I had to make a choice, the Olympics serves hockey better.

I equate those who think that the World Cup should be the premiere elite event with those who do not care about hockey's growth outside it's established countries. It is cleary a step in the wrong direction.

someone posted the ratings for Olympic Hockey on here somewhere... maybe even in this thread... the Olympics are doing NOTHING special for the viewing of Hockey.

and that is EXACTLY my point. make the World Cup a consistent thing... well organized, moved around to different locations, etc. have it between the Winter Olympics... include more teams in the tournament, so on and so forth.

the Olympics do nothing special for Hockey... if Hockey can't exist internationally without NHL participation in the Olympics, then Hockey can't exist, and we all know that isn't true.

someone posted the ratings for Olympic Hockey on here somewhere... maybe even in this thread... the Olympics are doing NOTHING special for the viewing of Hockey.

and that is EXACTLY my point. make the World Cup a consistent thing... well organized, moved around to different locations, etc. have it between the Winter Olympics... include more teams in the tournament, so on and so forth.

the Olympics do nothing special for Hockey... .

What a load of crap.

As for the ratings, we're talking US here. If I've understood correctly, NBC has shown hockey on their cable networks which have had huge ratings hikes. The reason for NBC's poor ratings are because they only show tape delayed events.

someone posted the ratings for Olympic Hockey on here somewhere... maybe even in this thread... the Olympics are doing NOTHING special for the viewing of Hockey.

and that is EXACTLY my point. make the World Cup a consistent thing... well organized, moved around to different locations, etc. have it between the Winter Olympics... include more teams in the tournament, so on and so forth.

the Olympics do nothing special for Hockey... if Hockey can't exist internationally without NHL participation in the Olympics, then Hockey can't exist, and we all know that isn't true.
You just said that International hockey can exist without the NHL in the Olympics, and went on to talk about only American ratings....

(A) You obviously have not done your homework, and (B) you are obviously only concerned with American ratings (I'm not)

(A) But, let's talk about hockey in the US for a sec, in the '01/02 season (with the Salt Lake City games), ABC's highest NHL ratings were in the immediate weeks following the Olympics. The only reason they did not hold was because the NHL game was so boring back then (all the clutching and grabbing). The NHL game is more exciting now, and if the new NHL rules hold, they will be just as exciting after the 2010 Vancouver games, so that will help with the holding the ratings spike following both these and the Vancouver Olympics.

(B) I'm not only talking about ratings in North America. Hockey is not only North America. I am not saying the International hockey cannot exist without NHL participation. I'm saying that Olympic participation brings in more fans around the world (not just America), as they are exposed to a game during the Olympics that they would not otherwise be able to see.

If you bring back amateurs to Olympic hockey, who the hell is going to represent European countries? 15 year old boys who didn't sign a pro contract with their teams yet?

Now that would be some good, exciting hockey.

What a load of crap.

As for the ratings, we're talking US here. If I've understood correctly, NBC has shown hockey on their cable networks which have had huge ratings hikes. The reason for NBC's poor ratings are because they only show tape delayed events.

actually NO... the ratings i was referring to were the European ratings for the Olympic Hockey games. i haven't seen the ratings for the US (though, they will obviously be bad given the times that the games are shown here).

(A) But, let's talk about hockey in the US for a sec, in the '01/02 season (with the Salt Lake City games), ABC's highest NHL ratings were in the immediate weeks following the Olympics. The only reason they did not hold was because the NHL game was so boring back then (all the clutching and grabbing). The NHL game is more exciting now, and if the new NHL rules hold, they will be just as exciting after the 2010 Vancouver games, so that will help with the holding the ratings spike following both these and the Vancouver Olympics.

interesting theory. PROVE it. the numbers are nothing special on TV this year, and the NHL is seeing a nice boost due to the novelty of there having not been hockey for a year... the heart grows fonder for what it lacks. hockey is hockey... people watch their national teams (which has no relation to the NHL obviously) get a little interested, but then go back to whatever they were doing before...

actually NO... the ratings i was referring to were the European ratings for the Olympic Hockey games. i haven't seen the ratings for the US (though, they will obviously be bad given the times that the games are shown here).

´

I don't know about other countries but Finland's games are getting huge ratings (as usual) in Finland.

Yeah, you're more right than I've ever expected, I found the numbers of the two German tv stations ARD & ZDF (in million):

Source: http://www.quotenmeter.de/

ITA-CAN 2,01
SWE-KAZ 3,58
GER-CZE 3,57
RUS-SVK 2,55

SWE-RUS: 2,77
CAN-GER: 2,32

ITA-GER 4,89
CAN-SUI 3,13

RUS-LAT 2,58
USA-SWE 2,04
CZE-ITA 1,68
FIN-CAN 1,25

GER-FIN: 2,78
USA-RUS: 2,13

SUI-SWE 1,61
FIN-USA 1,5
RUS-CAN 1,86

Note: Missing are the ORF (Austria) and DRS2 (Switzerland) for south Germans like me and Eurosport (German language area), who showed hockey, too. I've no clue what their numbers look like :dunno:

For the tv-coverage respective ARD and ZDF you need to say that the barely showed hockey live (even the German matches), instead they showed a third and then hockey roundups(?), all too often after 9 or 10 p.m :cry: .

german ratings was what was posted.

´

I don't know about other countries but Finland's games are getting huge ratings (as usual) in Finland.

I'm sure... but the issue isn't a nation watching it's own games. Lotta people watch Team USA's games... just not the others.

....interesting theory. PROVE it. the numbers are nothing special on TV this year, and the NHL is seeing a nice boost due to the novelty of there having not been hockey for a year... the heart grows fonder for what it lacks. hockey is hockey... people watch their national teams (which has no relation to the NHL obviously) get a little interested, but then go back to whatever they were doing before...
There were independent 2 articles I succintly remember a couple of months after Salt Lake (a couple of weeks apart), one from Florida, and another from somewhere else in the south, and the basic point of both were: I saw this wonderful spectacle during the Olympics, and thought "Wow, this sport is great, I thought hockey was mostly fights! Let'd tune into the NHL once it starts next week!" Then afterwards, they were bored by the low-scoring boring NHL game with all the defensive tactics.

I pretty sure that I will not be able to provide links to stories 4 years old, so given my level of interest on this subject, you will simply have to trust me on this.

With respect to "going back to what they were doing before" - things can change. Before MLB was the most popular sport in the US, now it is the NFL. All these people are watching Nascar now that weren't 5 years ago. With proper marketing of the NHL (another issue I have), and using the Olympics as a platform, the NHL can improve it's standing in the US.

I'm sure... but the issue isn't a nation watching it's own games. Lotta people watch Team USA's games... just not the others.It does not matter if they watch the other nation's games.

If there is hype in Finland for Finland's games, and national games like these make some kid pick up a hockey stick instread of a tennis racquet or a pair of skis etc...and want to pursue a hockey career, that is that this is all about - strengthening the hockey culture in that country.

There were independent 2 articles I succintly remember a couple of months after Salt Lake (a couple of weeks apart), one from Florida, and another from somewhere else in the south, and the basic point of both were: I saw this wonderful spectacle during the Olympics, and thought "Wow, this sport is great, I thought hockey was mostly fights! Let'd tune into the NHL once it starts next week!" Then afterwards, they were bored by the low-scoring boring NHL game with all the defensive tactics.

I pretty sure that I will not be able to provide links to stories 4 years old, so given my level of interest on this subject, you will simply have to trust me on this.

With respect to "going back to what they were doing before" - things can change. Before MLB was the most popular sport in the US, now it is the NFL. All these people are watching Nascar now that weren't 5 years ago. With proper marketing of the NHL (another issue I have), and using the Olympics as a platform, the NHL can improve it's standing in the US.

very dubious of this claim.

i think the largest problem for growth in the US is that kids aren't playing the sport of hockey growing up... thus there are very few casual fans, which is where baseball makes all of its money. you can't compete with the NFL because it is so friggin easy to follow (one game a week) and it is the perfect TV sport...

NASCAR fascinates me... and ever since i had an engineering friend who worked on a NASCAR crew for two summers tell me that even he didn't watch most of the races (just the beginning and end) i've written it off completely -- despite the clear excitement that a left-turn represents :confused:.

anyway.

the way the sport is going to grow in the US is by establishing hockey in the markets that currently have hockey. by THOSE teams winning, and winning consistently, which will grow fans with the franchise... the problem with that, and MY issue with the way that the NHL has been managed, is that it takes time to develop those markets. people need to learn about hockey and get interested in it... which requires winning. your team losing every night is boring... this is the BEST aspect of the new CBA... teams that don't have the built-up market will be able to compete financially and hopefully maintain their players to keep on winning.

the Olympics do not help this at all... they really don't. people watched the Olympics... got interested... and then turned back to a team that was losing with regularity in the markets that you are talking about. if their team was going out and winning every night they would keep watching. has nothing to do with the game being boring... not to mention you can't trust people in this sort of thing. people ALWAYS have serious complaints about their vacation and then afterwards say it was great... opinion polls are shotty at best.

It does not matter if they watch the other nation's games.

If there is hype in Finland for Finland's games, and national games like these make some kid pick up a hockey stick instread of a tennis racquet or a pair of skis etc...and want to pursue a hockey career, that is that this is all about - strengthening the hockey culture in that country.

dude... that's the MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR! you want people watching HOCKEY... not just their own flag. you're getting ZERO growth for the game if people tune-in just to see their own team play and then turn the channel back off... cuz they aren't watching hockey, they're watching "us" play.