A positive thread about the ASG women's 3 on 3 match

[Viqsi]

I did not come away as happy as I expected. But that's mostly because Team America lost.

Still, 'twas fun. A bit of a different approach to 3-on-3 than I would have expected what with the going all-out-all-the-time attitude, but I suppose with the running clock it makes sense.

 

[kylbaz]

Low quality hockey just for the sake of getting women involved, give me a break. If it were 17 year old boys out there everyone would be asking 'why am I watching this?'

 

[Paperbagofglory]

It's the same with the WNBA. Lebron makes more! Well duh. He is a worldwide brand. Can you name 3 WNBA players? I'll make it easier. How about naming 3 teams? No you arent making as much. It's not sexism its economics. Your product isnt in high demand.

The L.A sparks. The Washington Sassy Pants and the New York Knicks.

 

[Ryuji Yamazaki]

2-1.

Sounded like a real barn burner.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

I enjoy watching women’s hockey for the Olympics but that’s generally the only time I pay attention to it

Unfortunately for these ladies, as much as people enjoy talking the talk online, I’d be very shocked if there’s a huge uptick in interest for the NWHL after this event. There’s only so much mindshare people can have, and other professional women’s sports run into the same thing

I think the NHL will eventually invest in a women’s league (mainly because it would be good PR for them), but I can understand their hesitation to do so. They have to be willing to lose money on the league for at least a couple years.

It’s not as simple as some like to make it out to be. Other folks are very quick to spend money that isn’t theirs

 

[Mario le Magnifique]

Low quality hockey just for the sake of getting women involved, give me a break. If it were 17 year old boys out there everyone would be asking 'why am I watching this?'

Do you think women's tennis to be low quality tennis also ?

 

[oilexport]

Exactly what negativity is coming from a thread trying to look at a sporting event positively aside from the forced negativity you curmudgeonous opponents have to bring in order to feel paid attention to? If you can't be positive, if you think the positivity is forced, why even come in here? Why do you folks have such a burning need to try to force everyone else to agree with your negative takes?

I was listening to the problems that the female players brought up during the segment interviews. They brought up the issue of not being able to make a living at it, and how unfair it was. I believe they have unrealistic expectations that are clouded by all the encouragement they receive.

I was glad to watch them on this occasion and admire there athleticism and hard work to get to the top of their class. I look up to them !!!

 

[sinDer]

I enjoy watching women’s hockey for the Olympics but that’s generally the only time I pay attention to it

Unfortunately for these ladies, as much as people enjoy talking the talk online, I’d be very shocked if there’s a huge uptick in interest for the NWHL after this event. There’s only so much mindshare people can have, and other professional women’s sports run into the same thing

I think the NHL will eventually invest in a women’s league (mainly because it would be good PR for them), but I can understand their hesitation to do so. They have to be willing to lose money on the league for at least a couple years.

It’s not as simple as some like to make it out to be. Other folks are very quick to spend money that isn’t theirs

They quality of hockey is just not there.

Team USA vs team Canada can give a decent show, but that's about it.

But spread the talent in a 10, 8 or even 6 teams league and you end up with midget A level hockey.

I can watch that level of hockey for free every week-end if I want in my own town.

 

[oilexport]

Do you think women's tennis to be low quality tennis also ?

I dont. Sports like tennis and women's volleyball is exciting compared to the men's. I believe the extra volleys make it more enjoyable then mens. Too many quick kill shots in tennis and volleyball on the mens side.

Also, gymnastics is exciting on the female side.

So I may pay to see some of that stuff. I'm sure not going to pay to see the female hockey, it sucks (aside from the occasional game)!

 

[Paperbagofglory]

I dont. Sports like tennis and women's volleyball is exciting compared to the men's. I believe the extra volleys make it more enjoyable then mens. Too many quick kill shots in tennis and volleyball on the mens side.

Also, gymnastics is exciting on the female side.

So I may pay to see some of that stuff. I'm sure not going to pay to see the female hockey, it sucks (aside from the occasional game)!

Sorry to be that guy but womens tennis was boring in the Williams era because they tried to emulate the men and just bash the hell out of the ball. It resulted in error fests and constant double faults. There were no Martina Hingis types out there anymore except maybe Halep and Wozniaci who was a great defender and Halep had the variety. But they got overpowered by the 6 feet tall eastern european players that dominated with power. The one that missed the lines slightly less would win. You must have a recency bias because Halep, Wozniacki and Andreescu have won majors. Players with varying tactics. While Andreescu has crazy power she also puts a lot of spin on the ball giving her a higher net clearance and being less error prone than her counterparts. Shes also great at drop shots and volleying. Shes one of the first complete players in decades. I hated the ballbashing era on the mens and womens side. Tennis rant over.

 

[bluesfan94]

Best part of the night for me except the wrong team won.

 

[Kamiccolo]

So I watched it because I turned off the skills as it was boring as shit. I didn't mind it at all, I don't care if they want to do this.

However, a few talking points I read..

1. No one is saying they should be compared to men it's different

Well... That's not true. Every talking point is about a women's NHL with pay that matches. Therefore, it is going to draw direct comparisons to men and men's hockey. When this happens, there is a stark contrast in quality of play. Even as someone who watches more AHL games than any other non NHL hockey, the quality of the game was jarring. It looked very low level. Skaters almost looked like they were in slow motion.

2. It's not pandering

Well, it is in a way. It's not pandering to showcase the women's best of the best and let them showcase that. It is however to pretend they are just as good as men or whatever. Listening to the announcers was kind of laughably bad. You can support women following their dreams without trying to pretend that they could lace em up in the NHL if only they were given the chance.

3. NHL should make a women's league

Hmm.. I don't see it. The league is struggling to keep 31 NHL franchises going right now. If they add a massive revenue loss (which it will be) in the sake of "equality" it is no longer equality, it is pandering. Going back to my AHL talk, AHL teams struggle to sell out regularly with only a few thousand seats and cheap as dirt tickets. AHL teams usually host a ton of upcoming stars and NHLers to see and this is still a problem.

So how do we expect their games to make any profit? Who is going to pay them an NHL level pay when they can't even support an AHL level 70k salary? Are fans ready to have the league contract to afford women's games?

And what happens if it fails? Do we keep it going and keep losing money in the name of "equality" or do we fold the league and hear about sexism again?

 

[Sanchise90]

Agreed. And the NHL + owners should 100% do that.

Um what? No...

 

[Sanchise90]

So I watched it because I turned off the skills as it was boring as ****. I didn't mind it at all, I don't care if they want to do this.

However, a few talking points I read..

1. No one is saying they should be compared to men it's different

Well... That's not true. Every talking point is about a women's NHL with pay that matches. Therefore, it is going to draw direct comparisons to men and men's hockey. When this happens, there is a stark contrast in quality of play. Even as someone who watches more AHL games than any other non NHL hockey, the quality of the game was jarring. It looked very low level. Skaters almost looked like they were in slow motion.

2. It's not pandering

Well, it is in a way. It's not pandering to showcase the women's best of the best and let them showcase that. It is however to pretend they are just as good as men or whatever. Listening to the announcers was kind of laughably bad. You can support women following their dreams without trying to pretend that they could lace em up in the NHL if only they were given the chance.

3. NHL should make a women's league

Hmm.. I don't see it. The league is struggling to keep 31 NHL franchises going right now. If they add a massive revenue loss (which it will be) in the sake of "equality" it is no longer equality, it is pandering. Going back to my AHL talk, AHL teams struggle to sell out regularly with only a few thousand seats and cheap as dirt tickets. AHL teams usually host a ton of upcoming stars and NHLers to see and this is still a problem.

So how do we expect their games to make any profit? Who is going to pay them an NHL level pay when they can't even support an AHL level 70k salary? Are fans ready to have the league contract to afford women's games?

And what happens if it fails? Do we keep it going and keep losing money in the name of "equality" or do we fold the league and hear about sexism again?

Agreed. Think about how many times teams have had to move locations in the AHL. Plus truth be told, if women simply supported women's leagues, they would be profitable and viable. The fact that they are not speaks volumes...

 

[Kamiccolo]

Agreed. Think about how many times teams have had to move locations in the AHL. Plus truth be told, if women simply supported women's leagues, they would be profitable and viable. The fact that they are not speaks volumes...

Right. The arguement is if you put a women's league up with the mens then women would come. However who is going to take on the cost of that? Lower markets have failed. This isn't sexism, it's business. If I go in and try to get a loan and my preliminary market assessment is no one wants what I am trying to sell, I get denied.

 

[bluesfan94]

It's the same with the WNBA. Lebron makes more! Well duh. He is a worldwide brand. Can you name 3 WNBA players? I'll make it easier. How about naming 3 teams? No you arent making as much. It's not sexism its economics. Your product isnt in high demand.

Really easy. Phoenix Mercury, LA Sparks, Minnesota Lynx. Three players: Elena Della Donne, Britney Griner, Sophie Cunningham.

 

[Sureves]

I think it was a good thing for the NHL to do from a PR perspective, and I also think it’s a good thing to do for girls/women everywhere.

That being said, it wasn’t good hockey. It just wasn’t. I think it looked fairly similar to 15 year old boys playing in AAA Midget hockey, but the players’ shots are very noticeably worse than 15 year old boys in AAA Midget hockey.

I would never pay to watch this unless I had a child or spouse who wanted to do so (which IS possible).

 

[Sureves]

Really easy. Phoenix Mercury, LA Sparks, Minnesota Lynx. Three players: Elena Della Donne, Britney Griner, Sophie Cunningham.

I don’t watch basketball of either gender. I can’t name a single women’s team nor woman player.

Conversely spending 1 minute: Lebron, Durant, Nash, Derozen, Leonard

and I can probably name 15 teams easily

 

[sandysan]

Enjoyed it! Would watch it again

For free? Sure.
Would you pay to watch it ( and be honest)?

 

[bluesfan94]

I don’t watch basketball of either gender. I can’t name a single women’s team nor woman player.

Conversely spending 1 minute: Lebron, Durant, Nash, Derozen, Leonard

and I can probably name 15 teams easily

I don’t think anyone is saying the WNBA is bigger than the NBA but I’m not shocked a Canadian managed to name the two best players and then three people with Canada ties the year after the Raptors lucked their way to a title.

 

[Eastcoaster84]

I love watching woman’s hockey,
I didn’t like the timbit style 3-3 intermission game set up would of rather seen the top 2-3 best at each event allowed to go head to head in the events, after fastest skater last year the mini game felt like a cop out
Women are not at the same level as the Nhl men but it’s a different game everyone can see that.
My take is it has to start somewhere.
The nhl players today are better than 30 years ago top to bottom, far more skilled and coming from far wider reach of the world. If hockey didn’t move to Phoenix we wouldn’t have Austin Mathews
If there was a league that was sustainable that young females aspired to play in, more would. And the more that play the higher the level goes. I hope the nhl does subsidies the wnhl as a long term investment

 

[K Fleur]

I started watching about halfway through the women’s 3 on 3. I thought it was pretty fun. More entertaining than the accuracy thing they did to end the night. Dragging out Keith “Michelin Man” Tkachuk and Brett “walking booze bottle” Hull was some serious cringe.

 

[eartotheground]

My personal philosophy that all work is valuable and people have the right to a dignified life, no matter what profession they choose.

Like I said earlier, I don't subscribe to conventional economic theory. Mostly because it grossly misunderstands human nature.

nature doesn't care about your feelings, and liberty/free economics is an extension of nature in that demand for a given product, (or labor) sets the value of that labor. if you're a subsistence farmer, you can toil away for hours every day on a piece of art in your barn, which when it comes time to harvest the crops, has zero value- there's no innate, natural value to that labor. rather, it requires someone else to see value in that art, and be willing to trade their surplus of food stuffs to you for that art.
you don't get to choose your profession and then demand others with surplus support your daily efforts. labor's value is found in either it's capability to keep you alive another day, or in the eyes of another person, and it's unfair to push your value set on those eyes.

The WNBA bleeds money but it's been around for 25 years. It's subsidized by the NBA and so are their players salaries. They make enough to live off of, just like an average person. I don't think that's unreasonable and an insane ask. It's just good business.

this is the real reason it makes sense to invest in the women's game- if you can create a demand for it, it will eventually pay off, likely in the form of a larger fanbase for the nhl as currently constructed.

You can get all the exposure you want, but if the product is mediocre, it ain't gonna sell.

the saving grace here is that many mediocre products thrive in the marketplace, but the real key is thinking of the women's game as an investment.

 

[Trap Jesus]

I think it was decent, maybe a bit long though. I've grown to really dislike 3-on-3 NHL hockey anyways though.

I think women have gotten pretty impressive with their stick skills, although the skating still doesn't quite hold up (Kendall Coyne-Schofield aside, you could tell she was flying). There was this really impressive dangle by Lamoureux, and I think Poulin is legitimately entertaining to watch with her hockey sense.

What I didn't care for is that it really did just seem like a hit piece against the NWHL. I don't really know anything about that situation but my god, it just reeked of bias with how much they were going off on it.

 

[GodPucker]

I said I wasn't watching it, but it was actually quite entertaining I must say. Good on them *thumbs up*