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

[eartotheground]

Inherent capacity for violence?

This is going to go well

 

[Chips]

This is going to go well

I was debating bringing up ‘that’ age old social issue, but I figure why risk getting in trouble for a joke when I know almost certainly somebody else will bring it up seriously.

 

[Svencouver]

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.

Oh absolutely, I agree with you completely. The physical differences can definitely not be overstated. I just take a little bit of issue with people downplaying the skill, ability, and accomplishments of these women just because they were born with a different set of chromosomes. Hopefully that clarification makes sense.

 

[tucker3434]

Is anyone going to try to tell me that it wasn’t the most entertaining portion of yesterday’s activities? A big part of that is how watered down the skills comp has become, but the women’s game was far better than seeing who could shoot the puck into the net from the club level. It was pretty much the only thing worth watching.

 

[Rygu]

Is anyone going to try to tell me that it wasn’t the most entertaining portion of yesterday’s activities? A big part of that is how watered down the skills comp has become, but the women’s game was far better than seeing who could shoot the puck into the net from the club level. It was pretty much the only thing worth watching.

Besides the hardest shot and fastest skater, nothing was worth watching yesterday.

 

[Schmooley]

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.

Nah by then there will be a TAHL
Trans American Hockey League
I will watch it

 

[Trap Jesus]

Is anyone going to try to tell me that it wasn’t the most entertaining portion of yesterday’s activities? A big part of that is how watered down the skills comp has become, but the women’s game was far better than seeing who could shoot the puck into the net from the club level. It was pretty much the only thing worth watching.

1. Hardest shot
2. Fastest skater
3. Save streak
4. Women's game
5. Accuracy
6. That god-awful full-ice point shootout they did

First 2 were great, 3rd and 4th were good, 5th was below average, 6th was awful

 

[RedMenace]

Really seems like some posters have missed the one key word in the title: "Positive."

Why even post if you can't follow the spirit of the thread? There was plenty of negativity or "realism" in the other thread, just keep that shit there. Jesus.

 

[mja]

Really seems like some posters have missed the one key word in the title: "Positive."

Why even post if you can't follow the spirit of the thread? There was plenty of negativity or "realism" in the other thread, just keep that **** there. Jesus.

Because people are miserable shits who have to ruin everything.

 

[Chips]

Is anyone going to try to tell me that it wasn’t the most entertaining portion of yesterday’s activities? A big part of that is how watered down the skills comp has become, but the women’s game was far better than seeing who could shoot the puck into the net from the club level. It was pretty much the only thing worth watching.

They could have put any team in there and accomplished the same thing. Competitive hockey will always been better than the gimmicks.

 

[JasonRoseEh]

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.

Therein lies the truth that no one wants to say and this goes for every sport outside of women's underhand hardball; it just isn't good enough to pay for given the alternative. No one is saying "Hey that's really good for a woman" they're comparing it to the pinnacle of each respective sport, regardless of gender.

It's why the nonsense with women soccer was simply that and the case for the WNBA while the NBA keeps it afloat.

 

[Rich Nixon]

Therein lies the truth that no one wants to say and this goes for every sport outside of women's underhand hardball; it just isn't good enough to pay for given the alternative. No one is saying "Hey that's really good for a woman" they're comparing it to the pinnacle of each respective sport, regardless of gender.

It's why the nonsense with women soccer was simply that and the case for the WNBA while the NBA keeps it afloat.

The "objective quality" argument is so damn stupid. Here's why:

1. It isn't true. People do actively support and follow inferior sports leagues all the damn time. Canadian Juniors. College football. Hell, high school football--there are stadiums in Texas bigger than NHL arenas. Women's tennis often beats men's in ratings during Open events.

2. It doesn't matter. It's the same concept in any business: Multiple options will always exist and there is no objective 'best,' though some things may be much better and more popular than others. Go buy a vegetable peeler, some will work better than others, some will be tailored to lefties, some will only peel beets...whatever. You don't have to make a single market-dominating megaproduct, you just have to sell enough potato peelers to not go under.

3. Starting a business is hard. Starting a large and ambitious business is very hard, and often involves a lot of debt. Most major sports league, men's or women's, starts in the red for years or decades. That isn't exclusive to sports. Using the WNBA as an example for "never work" across the board is silly because it isn't the lone model for a startup sports league, nor is it an extreme exception.

4. Minor league low-level baseball still operates. Though implicitly some are feeder leagues that might be holding small reserves of MLB talent, many are dead ends with low salaries and constant team relocation. But people still try, because they want to own baseball teams, and people want to play baseball even without pro prospects, and there are towns where people want to go to the ballpark to be at the ballpark.

Building a successful women's hockey league would be very difficult. It would have to be very regional an accessible but still have a good TV deal. And it would toil for a while, and probably need a lot of funding to survive early years. It's unlikely. But it's not impossible, just ambitious.

 

[JasonRoseEh]

The "objective quality" argument is so damn stupid. Here's why:

1. It isn't true. People do actively support and follow inferior sports leagues all the damn time. Canadian Juniors. College football. Hell, high school football--there are stadiums in Texas bigger than NHL arenas. Women's tennis often beats men's in ratings during Open events.

2. It doesn't matter. It's the same concept in any business: Multiple options will always exist and there is no objective 'best.' Go buy a vegetable peeler, some will work better than others, some will be tailored to lefties, some will only peel beets...whatever. You don't have to make a single market-dominating megaproduct, you just have to sell enough potato peelers to not go under.

3. Starting a business is hard. Starting a large and ambitious business is very hard, and often involves a lot of debt. Most major sports league, men's or women's, starts in the red for years or decades. That isn't exclusive to sports. Using the WNBA as an example for "never work" across the board is silly because it isn't the lone model for a startup sports league, nor is it an extreme exception.

Building a successful women's hockey league would be very difficult. It would have to be very regional an accessible but still have a good TV deal. And it would toil for a while, and probably need a lot of funding to survive early years. It's unlikely. But it's not impossible, just ambitious.

You see this yet league's like the WNBA have never been profitable, in fact they're a time sink and women's soccer isn't a draw whatsoever outside of the world cup. I'm sorry, no one is going to pay to watch a women's hockey league when you have the alternative, not on the scale to make it profitable anyway.

Aside from that you hear the athletes complain about equal footing with their comparative mens sports and when you see the numbers, it's a laughable stance that turns into accusing everyone of being a sexist who doesn't support their charge.

 

[Rich Nixon]

You see this yet league's like the WNBA have never been profitable, in fact they're a time sink and women's soccer isn't a draw whatsoever outside of the world cup. I'm sorry, no one is going to pay to watch a women's hockey league when you have the alternative, not on the scale to make it profitable anyway.

Aside from that you hear the athletes complain about equal footing with their comparative mens sports and when you see the numbers, it's a laughable stance that turns into accusing everyone of being a sexist who doesn't support their charge.

You didn't read a word I posted and then brought up being accused of sexism when no one accused you of sexism. Very strong post here not at all transparent.

 

[Chips]

There's a difference between your "circle jerk," and having constructive, positive dialogue about a thing without people coming around and trying to **** on it.

It's really not a difficult concept, but I guess people on the Internet are going to be people on the Internet.

Dumb as ****.

What “constructive dialogue” could you have if one side of the discussion isn’t allowed? That’s a circle of close platonic friends too afraid to rub each other the wrong way.

 

[RedMenace]

What “constructive dialogue” could you have if one side of the discussion isn’t allowed? That’s a circle of close platonic friends

I don't know, how to grow the game, for example? Maybe discuss the good things about it for that purpose?

I mean, come the f*** on, it's really not a tough thing to understand. Have you never been employed by a company that encourages ideas and constructive discussion in meetings without pointing out the obvious and exhaustively mentioned negative aspects?

 

[Rich Nixon]

What “constructive dialogue” could you have if one side of the discussion isn’t allowed? That’s a circle of close platonic friends

...no one "isn't allowed"? Anyone can contribute, I think the point is "can we have this thread without folks stumbling in for the old 'women's-hockey-f***ing-sucks-ARE-YOU-CALLING-ME-SEXIST-BRO!?' song and dance routine?"

It's no different than every thread turning into a Leafs thread, which I'm sure folks understand. It's like being told to shove off because Leafs talk isn't "constructive dialogue" about the Islanders--it isn't that "one side isn't allowed" it's that they're just ignoring the focus of the thread and making it about themselves. If you have nothing to say about the Islanders, you don't have to talk about the Leafs; if you have no actual observations about the thing you just saw, or if you ostensibly don't care about or for it at all, you don't have to come and complain about it all the time. It's not all about you*.

*that isn't directed at you in particular or at all, just at a general wave of posters that always shows up to derail things.

 

[mja]

It’s been said before, but I will again. You’re expecting a circle jerk on a discussion forum... you’re **** out of luck. There’d be no point to that thread. Just a bunch of repetitive, redundant “I agree”. Those comments would fit easily into a gdt or an all encompassing ASG thread, or here, along with the rest of the discussion.

You have the rest of the f***ing internet to shit on the product. The OP specifically created the thread to discuss this event in a positive way to get away from the negativity in those other threads. All of the wailing and gnashing of teeth over some women getting some attention for playing hockey is off topic. f***ing take it elsewhere. It's all just culture wars bullshit, proving once again that the internet enables people to be the worst versions of themselves. If the thread was meant to die a quick death with a handful of redundant posts, then so be it, but there would certainly have been a point, namely, that in some small tiny corner of the internet, a handful of human beings doing something cool, that they love, would be celebrated, rather than mercilessly torn down by a bunch of assholes.

 

[Chips]

I don't know, how to grow the game, for example? Maybe discuss the good things about it for that purpose?

I mean, come the **** on, it's really not a tough thing to understand. Have you never been employed by a company that encourages ideas and constructive discussion in meetings without pointing out the obvious and exhaustively mentioned negative aspects?

The thread specifically is about the 3v3 all star game, which was about showcasing them to help grow their game. There’s a huge business angle, I agree, but there’s a very steep hill to climb and ignoring that for the sake of “positivity” is a useless conversation because you’re seriously discussing something that’s extremely unlikely to happen.

The idea that the women’s game will be hard to grow into a sustainable league is very legitimate and an inherently important part of the conversation.

 

[Chips]

...no one "isn't allowed"? Anyone can contribute, I think the point is "can we have this thread without folks stumbling in for the old 'women's-hockey-****ing-sucks-ARE-YOU-CALLING-ME-SEXIST-BRO!?' song and dance routine?"

It's no different than every thread turning into a Leafs thread, which I'm sure folks understand. It's like being told to shove off because Leafs talk isn't "constructive dialogue" about the Islanders--it isn't that "one side isn't allowed" it's that they're just ignoring the focus of the thread and making it about themselves. If you have nothing to say about the Islanders, you don't have to talk about the Leafs; if you have no actual observations about the thing you just saw, or if you ostensibly don't care about or for it at all, you don't have to come and complain about it all the time. It's not all about you*.

*that isn't directed at you in particular or at all, just at a general wave of posters that always shows up to derail things.

The reason you guys are bitching is because of the presence of people acknowledging the realities of growing women’s hockey. If any such acknowledgement is simply “negative”, and you’re suggesting they should leave, you’re suggestion they’d ideally not be welcome in this thread.

 

[Chips]

You have the rest of the ****ing internet to **** on the product. The OP specifically created the thread to discuss this event in a positive way to get away from the negativity in those other threads. All of the wailing and gnashing of teeth over some women getting some attention for playing hockey is off topic. ****ing take it elsewhere. It's all just culture wars bull****, proving once again that the internet enables people to be the worst versions of themselves. If the thread was meant to die a quick death with a handful of redundant posts, then so be it, but there would certainly have been a point, namely, that in some small tiny corner of the internet, a handful of human beings doing something cool, that they love, would be celebrated, rather than mercilessly torn down by a bunch of *******s.

I’m sorry having the opinion that growing the game will have serious struggles is women hating culture war bs.

If the thread would have died anyway then why bitch about it being derailed, maybe most people didn’t have a ton to say... it was just a brief meaningless game that lasted a little bit. There’s not much to say.

 

[RedMenace]

The idea that the women’s game will be hard to grow into a sustainable league is very legitimate and an inherently important part of the conversation.

That's as may be, but it's not what this thread is about.

The point being, don't come into a place dedicated to a certain thing, shit on that thing, and expect people to hail you (not you specifically) as some sort of hero of rational discussion.

 

[RedMenace]

The reason you guys are *****ing is because of the presence of people acknowledging the realities of growing women’s hockey. If any such acknowledgement is simply “negative”, and you’re suggesting they should leave, you’re suggestion they’d ideally not be welcome in this thread.

There's an enormous difference between "acknowledgment" of issues, and calling something "terrible," "not entertainment because girls," etc., just to be a contrarian asshole and pound the manly Internet chest.

 

[Chimpradamus]

Positive? Yeah, sure. I can do this. I think it's admirable that there are girls and women who love the sport so much, they're willing to sacrifice alot to play a game that is probably the most disadvantegous for the female body that you can imagine. I guess that's why they eliminated hitting, since the injuries are bad enough when men play.

Personally, I don't think you can even call female hockey, "hockey". It's more of its own sport. When you eliminate the physical play in hockey, you're left with something entirely different. Too bad for women nobody want to pay money to watch that. That's how the world is.

 

[Devonator]

The most positive thing I can think with regard to this 3 on 3 match is that it is over!