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

[RedMenace]

If the thread would have died anyway then why ***** 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.

That's the point: If you don't have anything to contribute to the specific thread, stay the f*** out.

The people who want to discuss the positive aspects should be able to without having to defend their position or read the same haters post the same shit as last night.

Again, simple concept, apparently hard to grasp.

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

Like this bullshit right here. Case in point.

 

[RedMenace]

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.

Backhanded positivity, should have stopped right there.

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.

So non-contact beer league hockey isn't hockey?

Youth hockey before they teach hitting isn't hockey?

Okay then.

 

[Asinine]

I watched the highlights and I positively cannot tell if they were trying or not.

 

[Il Stugotz]

I’d like for there to be a stable professional women’s hockey league and think it would be a good long term investment.

 

[1989]

I’d like for there to be a stable professional women’s hockey league and think it would be a good long term investment.

I wonder if that startup 3v3 league could possibly become a co-ed league, or have men's and women's divisions?
Might be a perfect format for growth in that regard (despite the understanding that it's not full team 5v5 hockey.)

 

[FiveFourteenSixOne]

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.

You're missing a key factor regarding the fact that lower level leagues have support. Those are still played at a high level. The top quality womens equivalents would fall dramatically short of those second rate mens leagues. It all boils down to quality. The very best womens hockey league is substantially worse than tier 2 Junior A, and there's not a chance in hell that those tier 2 junior A hockey leagues would get decent enough TV ratings to justify the air time. The quality of womens hockey, and most sport in general is lack luster. That's why its not profitable for the athletes.

 

[Rich Nixon]

So to recap:

A good time was had by all and there was no unnecessary anger over 20 minutes of highly contested novelty hockey that took part during a larger (and extremely cringeworthy) novelty event.

Drunk Brett Hull shoulda bodyslammed Marner on the big platform. Vince McMahon's still tight with the NBC family right?

 

[mw2noobbuster]

It was better than the mens 3v3 that's for sure.

 

[3074326]

Whoa who knew women playing 3v3 hockey was such a controversial topic. What an embarrassment some of you are. Go watch Don Cherry highlights or something.

 

[JTmillerForA1stLOL]

As a father of a 2.5 year old daughter it was very cool to show her this game. She got a chance to see women do the kinds of things she currently only relates to men.
When she jumps off the couch, runs fast, does anything crazy, she jokingly refers to herself as a boy. Kind of like "girls" don't do that kind of thing. It's not much of an issue but it gives me a greater appreciation for being able to show her some positive female role models in this kind of athletic aspect.

Before I had a daughter this would never have appealed to me. But knowing there are bigger things at play than my personal entertainment, I totally endorse what the NHL is trying to do here.

 

[BruinLVGA]

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.

"Your average 2nd liner in the show" has to perform his job at such speed & with such strength & with a ~200 lbs (or more) perfectly-trained & in peak shape defenseman all over him & also trying to make him pay a severe price hit-wise, if possible.
That's the environment where he has to use his good hands and think about how to perform at best in every situation.

These... apex women hockey players do their stuff in a much slower, way less physically demanding environment, without having a single worry about being flattened.

The fact that you don't see how a NHL 2nd liner has to be so much better than any of these women in ANY way, because he has to perform in an environment that is so much more difficult from every point of view, is beyond laughable.
A woman in the NHL wouldn't even have time to think how to use her supposed (more like "imagined") "2nd liner in the show" hands and IQ, even if hitting was taken out of the game.

 

[Henkka]

I liked it. It had somewhat decent speed.

Those shots from women are just weak.

 

[BruinLVGA]

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.

some of the best hockey players in the planet FOR THEIR GENDER*. Which roughly equates to the level of play of 13-14 year old boys (with any physical play forbidden), as per results vs said boys' teams.

Someone posted before in this thread showing that women are paid roughly a bit more than ECHL players, who are vastly better players than women players. Hence, given the women's performance, they are currently OVERPAID. They're already given a pass because of their gender. But somehow this privilege should be expanded even more, again solely for their gender.

 

[Esq]

What's your business model?

And back on topic..

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

The business model is that you create and maintain more female NHL fans by subsidizing a women’s league that (in isolation) is a loss leader.

 

[Brownies]

some of the best hockey players in the planet FOR THEIR GENDER*. Which roughly equates to the level of play of 13-14 year old boys (with any physical play forbidden), as per results vs said boys' teams.

Someone posted before in this thread showing that women are paid roughly a bit more than ECHL players, who are vastly better players than women players. Hence, given the women's performance, they are currently OVERPAID. They're already given a pass because of their gender. But somehow this privilege should be expanded even more, again solely for their gender.

You could say the same thing of the Women Tennis Association, a very successful league as far as I know. I personally like watching women play hockey just like I love the WTA. I hope to see a successful women hockey league someday.

 

[Ryuji Yamazaki]

Whoa who knew women playing 3v3 hockey was such a controversial topic. What an embarrassment some of you are. Go watch Don Cherry highlights or something.

why? Because we don’t wanna watch some watered down version of hockey.

 

[Ryuji Yamazaki]

The business model is that you create and maintain more female NHL fans by subsidizing a women’s league that (in isolation) is a loss leader.

It would have to be something like the LFL to garner any interest from a business standpoint.

 

[Frank Drebin]

I’d like for there to be a stable professional women’s hockey league and think it would be a good long term investment.

don't invest your own money. The only people that would watch are family members and friends

 

[Harhis]

I’d like for there to be a stable professional women’s hockey league and think it would be a good long term investment.

Level of play with best on best women's game is on par with 13-14 year old boys. There is just zero chance someone can make profitable business out of product with that low quality.

 

[johnpaulws]

The only negative thing about it was the puck trails

Agreed,

It looked like star wars to me

 

[ThePhoenixx]

All I hear in this thread is, "Daddy will pay for it."

Which brings the response, "No he won't."

 

[Esq]

why? Because we don’t wanna watch some watered down version of hockey.

Who is "we?" You don't speak for everyone. You are of course entitled to your personal opinion, but it doesn't mean that everyone else agrees.

 

[Viqsi]

why? Because we don’t wanna watch some watered down version of hockey.

Then.
DON'T.
f***ING.
WATCH.

And let those of us who do enjoy it enjoy it.

Why is this so g-ddamn hard for people?

 

[Frank Drebin]

Then.
DON'T.
****ING.
WATCH.

And let those of us who do enjoy it enjoy it.

Why is this so g-ddamn hard for people?

Here's the thing

No one complains about womens hockey during other televised events like the Olympics. If you're interested in womens hockey, you find out where to watch it, and you tune in. If you don't care to watch it, you go about your day and don't watch it.

This weekend, people tuned into the ASG because they were interested in the ASG. The womens 3on3 game was basically like a long commercial for womens hockey. People in a way, were forced to watch it in the same way they are forced to watch commercials. Thats why there is the backlash. If there was a womens 3 on 3 game on Channel 9 at the same time as the ASG, no one would complain because those that weren't interested simply wouldn't tune in.

 

[Frank Drebin]

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

I would hope so! They're professionals, the best in the world. Was that supposed to be an insult, because they are females?