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

[Cotton]

Because they are some of the planets best hockey players? And their 'demand' is not the whatever kind of salary they 'want' but one that they can actully live on, which they don't today so they are forced to have a non-hockey job and on top of that play pro hockey. So no, they are certainly not being subsidised but definitely earn their living. And yes they chose to play pro hockey even knowing that they can't make a living playing today for the sheer love of playing hockey.

Did you miss my point that part of the reason women are not as skilled as men and therefore not as entertaining is because of the lack of resources for girls growing up and ability to develop said skills. Women's hockey is developing as more girls start playing. It's still in its infancy regarding viewer interest and appeal and it will take years if not decades to develop to the point that it's sustainable financially and with salaries that attract the female Sidney Crosby or Connor McDavid.

The 2002 Olympic gold medal game was the most watched female hockey game ever. Something like 95% of Canada watched it. It was way more exposure than any All-Star gimmick could of ever provided.

And yet, Canada folded its womans hockey league last year because nobody cared and it wasnt making any money. It seems all that exposure amounted to nothing because nobody wants to actually pay to see it.

You stick miniature national flags on the backs of snails and have them "race" and I guarentee you you'll get crowds cheering on the ones that represent them. The NHL knows this which is why their scrimmage was Canada vs the US, because otherwise nobody gives a shit.

Woman have been playing competative hockey since the 1890's and there have been numerous leagues and levels of interest, but nothing sustainable. It sucks, but that's life.

 

[Cancuks]

It was the best part of the night other than Al McGinnis slapping a puck over 100 at his age. The remainder was a borefest. Did like McDavid getting beat too.

Hate to break it to you, but MacInnis didn't shoot 100MPH. That was his personal record from the allstar game around 20 years ago. He probably barely cracked 80MPH.

 

[Jeffrey Pedler]

It’s so weird: I find the same kind of people that degrade this match are probably the same people that lament about how things were so much better in the old days etc.
Well in the old days people used to take the higher ground and not just complain endlessly. You guys are the ones that ****ed it up.
Stop complaining and please S.T.FU.

Glad the game was a head turner for lots of people.

Exactly, just enjoy the game of hockey. These ladies would probably beat every poster on these boards, in a game of hockey.

 

[Cancuks]

Wouldn't be surprised if the NHL someday began a woman's league that plays during intermissions in the arenas and gets to parade around the actual Cup at the end of the season. Even going so far as allowing their names to get engraved on it.

 

[Pia8988]

Exactly, just enjoy the game of hockey. These ladies would probably beat every poster on these boards, in a game of hockey.

How many people are trying to get paid more than their services bring in to play hockey?

 

[Chips]

Some sort of junior showcase during All Star weekend would be great, actually.

Much like the women, the players would actually put in some effort because they're not taking the event for granted.

Very much. Show NHL fans at the NHL all star game potential future NHL all stars. Most Americans don’t gave the opportunity to watch junior hockey, and wouldn’t have the time for that AND nhl hockey both.

 

[Sanchise90]

That’s only 30 years. It took forever for men’s leagues to get themselves established before we got the NHL, and that was in a different time with more hospitable conditions (not having to compete with the behemoth that is the NHL/NBA alone is noteworthy).

I think given enough time a women’s league could become profitable ENOUGH, and ultimately would lead to a more talented female hockey; perhaps even making it so some female players could crossover into the NHL. It could take a very long time, but like I said, men have had over 100 years to rise to the talent and financial behemoth they enjoy today.

But if women on their own accord supported women's leagues, they would easily become profitable. Even though I'm a Stars fan, I live in Toronto. Like outside of the major sports, minor league teams (i.e. CHL, AHL, ECHL) have hard time drawing a ton of fans. How do you expect a lower quality of hockey to do that without support from its own demographic.

Women's hockey isn't even competing directly against other hockey avenues, its competing against other sports. Like a women's hockey team isn't competing just against those leagues, they're also competing for attention vs the Raptors, Toronto 905, Blue Jays etc. It's just a tough sell, as evidenced by women's soccer, baseball, WNBA etc not gaining traction without basically being subsidized.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

I'm sorry, I thought this was meant to be a positive thread.

 

[Goose]

The quality is objectively horrendous. They aren't at Midget AAA level. They generally lose the games they play against the 16-17 year old boys, and the boys are playing a game with no hitting allowed for the first time since they were 12. Unfortunately the quality of the women's game means that unless the NHL or owners with deep pockets want to subsidize a pro league that loses money, it will never be successful.

I don’t know if there’s a business case, but leagues can be built around something other than top tier talent.

MLS grew to where it is now with a lot of B-level talent compared with the European leagues, and my understanding is that the worst Champions League teams would still handily beat the best MLS teams.

Hundreds of thousands of people watch the CFL when it’s a league literally full of guys disappointed they didn’t make the NFL who would rather be in the NFL than the CFL.

Women’s leagues are tough to market, yes, but I’m not convinced it’s impossible. It’s unlikely that we’ll see a women’s hockey league really turn a profit, but who knows.

 

[Chips]

I don’t know if there’s a business case, but leagues can be built around something other than top tier talent.

MLS grew to where it is now with a lot of B-level talent compared with the European leagues, and my understanding is that the worst Champions League teams would still handily beat the best MLS teams.

Hundreds of thousands of people watch the CFL when it’s a league literally full of guys disappointed they didn’t make the NFL who would rather be in the NFL than the CFL.

Women’s leagues are tough to market, yes, but I’m not convinced it’s impossible. It’s unlikely that we’ll see a women’s hockey league really turn a profit, but who knows.

A key detail about soccer is MLS is kinda THE league in North America. People aren’t going to fly continents regularly to follow games elsewhere, and people like teams they can root for at home. Women’s hockey has plenty of hockey competition in North America, in addition to other athletic options people have.

As far as tv, I can’t imagine someone with sports package is going to ever choose women’s hockey over NHL when they will probably have the option, or basketball or whatever. What network would pay for the rights, and what time would they show it, when they have more profitable options to air? I mean you have to really look for NCAA or junior hockey, and those are arguably going to be bigger draws.

That probably leaves online streaming which I assume would narrow the pool of viewers. I’d probably end up on YouTube or HF looking for hockey.

 

[kylbaz]

Some sort of junior showcase during All Star weekend would be great, actually.

Much like the women, the players would actually put in some effort because they're not taking the event for granted.

That actually would be cool to see some up and coming talent.

 

[Svencouver]

I dont see whats so laughable about it. I didn't say that they were as fast or as strong or anything. Skill, dexterity and mental acuity have nothing to do with your birth sex or physiology, and everything to do with whats in your head and the practice you put in.

 

[kylbaz]

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

If you're comparing it to men, and are trying to incorporate it with the top men, yes. It would be embarrassing. And the skill gap is similar. Any top female would get destroyed by any below average pro.

 

[Svencouver]

If you're comparing it to men, and are trying to incorporate it with the top men, yes. It would be embarrassing. And the skill gap is similar. Any top female would get destroyed by any below average pro.

Right, but is that because of the gap in skill, technique, and the mental aspect of the game, or is it just because of the physical differences?

 

[kylbaz]

Right, but is that because of the gap in skill, technique, and the mental aspect of the game, or is it just because of the physical differences?

I'd say both.

 

[Frank Drebin]

Canada's goalie was very good. My boy actually asked who won so he was somewhat interested (cheering for Canada OC).

That said, its a sport in itself having fun with the posters that just have to defend it when its criticized. Like, if I turned on an LA-NJD snorefest, and commented how boring it was, nobody would be telling me to shut it off if it bothered me so much. If its on TV its fair game for criticism.

 

[notsocommonsense]

Because they are some of the planets best hockey players? And their 'demand' is not the whatever kind of salary they 'want' but one that they can actully live on, which they don't today so they are forced to have a non-hockey job and on top of that play pro hockey. So no, they are certainly not being subsidised but definitely earn their living. And yes they chose to play pro hockey even knowing that they can't make a living playing today for the sheer love of playing hockey.

Did you miss my point that part of the reason women are not as skilled as men and therefore not as entertaining is because of the lack of resources for girls growing up and ability to develop said skills. Women's hockey is developing as more girls start playing. It's still in its infancy regarding viewer interest and appeal and it will take years if not decades to develop to the point that it's sustainable financially and with salaries that attract the female Sidney Crosby or Connor McDavid.

I’m a little confused about the supposed lack of resources for girls that you refer to. . . In my area, every team, extra ice session or development program that is available is open to boys and girls ( except the ones that are girls only leagues and teams, which I have no problem with ) . . . There are no boys only teams, power skating classes, battle camps, etc . . But maybe it’s different in your area?

 

[Sasquatchbreath]

Who is going to pay to watch it at a large enough scale to be profitable when there is a far better product readily available?

nobody

 

[Svencouver]

I'd say both.

I don't really agree, although it would be hard to substantiate. These women absolutely work just as hard as the guys do. Anyone who's ever done a co-ed sport, like Swimming, where the guys and girls literally do the same workouts in the same group, or has any perspective in terms of training in womens sports can tell you that. There's no reason to believe that they would be less skilled or would read the game any less well when they put the same time in and are no less smart and "talented" (although I use that word with very little faith in the concept) than the guys are.

The only reason they would put less time in is because of their sports not being as lucrative so as to allow them to dedicate 100% of their lives to them, but I would reckon that someone like Serena Williams, a world class athlete who has dedicated her life to her sport, is no less skilled or "good" at tennis than the best men in the world either, even if she would lose convincingly to a relatively less skilled man due to the overwhelming differences in physiology.

 

[Chips]

I don't really agree, although it would be hard to substantiate. These women absolutely work just as hard as the guys do. Anyone who's ever done a co-ed sport, like Swimming, where the guys and girls literally do the same workouts in the same group, or has any perspective in terms of training in womens sports can tell you that. There's no reason to believe that they would be less skilled or would read the game any less well when they put the same time in and are no less smart and "talented" (although I use that word with very little faith in the concept) than the guys are.

The only reason they would put less time in is because of their sports not being as lucrative so as to allow them to dedicate 100% of their lives to them, but I would reckon that someone like Serena Williams, a world class athlete who has dedicated her life to her sport, is no less skilled or "good" at tennis than the best men in the world either, even if she would lose convincingly to a relatively less skilled man due to the overwhelming differences in physiology.

I agree the skill would either be equal or catch up on the same scale with time and effort out into developing them. But I don’t think you can overstate the impact of the physical differences.

I wouldn’t say it’s imposisble that a female player would make the NHL here or there over its existence, but I think it’s more likely a trans player would.

I’d willingly bet the “first female NHL player”, as worded, will be trans. No issue with that, just making a point about the athletic differences in bodies.

 

[kylbaz]

I don't really agree, although it would be hard to substantiate. These women absolutely work just as hard as the guys do. Anyone who's ever done a co-ed sport, like Swimming, where the guys and girls literally do the same workouts in the same group, or has any perspective in terms of training in womens sports can tell you that. There's no reason to believe that they would be less skilled or would read the game any less well when they put the same time in and are no less smart and "talented" (although I use that word with very little faith in the concept) than the guys are.

The only reason they would put less time in is because of their sports not being as lucrative so as to allow them to dedicate 100% of their lives to them, but I would reckon that someone like Serena Williams, a world class athlete who has dedicated her life to her sport, is no less skilled or "good" at Tennis than the best Men in the world either, even if she would lose convincingly to a relatively less skilled man due to the overwhelming differences in physiology.

Quality doesn't have anything to do how hard they work. Some of it is physical yes, but men and women have different minds and different make ups, aside from the testosterone. Look at some of the moves from men, the creativity in them, do you think if there were a group of women that never saw men play would come up with the moves that some of these guys do? Nonetheless, one of my main points was reaction time and other mental aspects. Women simply have slower reaction times than men, for example. That minuscule difference would be huge at the pro level. In the case of Serena Williams, that would be a huge disadvantage in a tennis match.

Here's video of women trying to return men's servers, and it doesn't even look like the men are going all out either.


I'm not saying the women aren't skilled, or don't work hard, but I'm talking quality, and quality is comparing one thing to another. In this case we are comparing top men to the top women, and there is a large difference.

I enjoy watching Women's hockey when they are playing for our country, same with soccer, but I absolute can't stand this shove it down our throats 'equality' in sports. Like we have to force a women ref in, women broadcasters and women into the all star game. Some things just aren't equal, period. Sadly this carries over to fire fighting and police. Now there are some beast of a women that damn well earn there job, but for every one that has there are often a few that were simply hired because they are female. And that is a joke. I've seen it first hand.

 

[kylbaz]

I agree the skill would either be equal or catch up on the same scale with time and effort out into developing them. But I don’t think you can overstate the impact of the physical differences.

I wouldn’t say it’s imposisble that a female player would make the NHL here or there over its existence, but I think it’s more likely a trans player would.

And mental. The first thing that came to mind when I responded to this post was reaction time. Men have quicker reaction time than women. And I"m sure there are other non-physical attributes that men simply excel at more than women, but I can't think of anything else at the moment.

 

[dubey]

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

What's your business model?

And back on topic..

The 3 on 3 game was fun and they should bring it back next year

 

[mjlee]

And mental. The first thing that came to mind when I responded to this post was reaction time. Men have quicker reaction time than women. And I"m sure there are other non-physical attributes that men simply excel at more than women, but I can't think of anything else at the moment.

Inherent capacity for violence?

 

[epo]

I dont see whats so laughable about it. I didn't say that they were as fast or as strong or anything. Skill, dexterity and mental acuity have nothing to do with your birth sex or physiology, and everything to do with whats in your head and the practice you put in.

Skill and hockey IQ can't be compared at such different levels of play. Some of the women have been playing at the same level (~male u18 AAA) for years, and there were still passes to nobody. An nhler has one year to adapt to that level before moving on to junior. They might be a star in the chl and then suddenly lose their hands and IQ when they make the nhl. The nhl is simply too fast and tight for most players. That isn't the case for male u18 AAA level.