Seanaconda
Registered User
- May 6, 2016
- 9,586
- 3,333
Players had a deal to extend the cba and then the nhl would let them go they didn't want toShould've just went to the Olympics
Players had a deal to extend the cba and then the nhl would let them go they didn't want toShould've just went to the Olympics
I refuse to make Bettman the villain in this.
Lack of participation in the olympics were on the players. NHL got absolutely nothing out of it. No growth in game, no surge in popularity.
Absolutely nothing.
Several teams got their star players injured. And the players and IOC both refused to pay for salary insurance.
Sorry this issue is on the players. Im happy with World Cup.
I refuse to make Bettman the villain in this.
Lack of participation in the olympics were on the players. NHL got absolutely nothing out of it. No growth in game, no surge in popularity.
Absolutely nothing.
Several teams got their star players injured. And the players and IOC both refused to pay for salary insurance.
Sorry this issue is on the players. Im happy with World Cup.
Players had a deal to extend the cba and then the nhl would let them go they didn't want to
Id argue that having the worlds best athletes available at the Olympics for the past 20 years has only helped with growing the game but, yeah, your right it has not directly resulted in the IOC literally paying the NHL owners large sums of cash.They are contracted, employees. Why should the owners risk them getting injured mid-season if they are unlikely to see any profit from it? Olympic Hockey has never created continued ratings or growth. At least with the World Cup, there is a profit incentive.
I refuse to make Bettman the villain in this.
Lack of participation in the olympics were on the players. NHL got absolutely nothing out of it. No growth in game, no surge in popularity.
Absolutely nothing.
Several teams got their star players injured. And the players and IOC both refused to pay for salary insurance.
Sorry this issue is on the players. Im happy with World Cup.
I'm pretty sure most studies have shown that any boost in Hockey viewership or attendance post-Olympic has proven to only be temporary and not long lasting.Id argue that having the worlds best athletes available at the Olympics for the past 20 years has only helped with growing the game but, yeah, your right it has not directly resulted in the IOC literally paying the NHL owners large sums of cash.
That being said, youd think somebody with the power would have stepped up and made it worth their while. NBC has the rights to show both the Olympics and NHL hockey. You think if they knew what they were doing they would have stepped in and said "Look. what can we do to make this work again?" Between them, the IIHF, the NHLPA, the fans, I just cant help but think there is a solution for those 31 people in the way.
Ha. I can imagine the American team going to the Olympics, getting off the plane, and then immediately awarded the gold as they are the only team there.I'm pretty sure most studies have shown that any boost in Hockey viewership or attendance post-Olympic has proven to only be temporary and not long lasting.
I don't think the Olympic's matter significantly to NA viewers that it will impact viewership. People won't stop watching the NHL because they aren't at the Olympics, and it appears people who give it a chance post-Olympics don't tend to stay. The only other of the Big 4 sports to even go to the Olympic is basketball, and I think it has had a very minimal effect on the NBA in regards to viewership. Baseball never sent MLB players to the Olympics, and the NFL going to the Olympics would be a joke.
He comes across like a petulant child when it comes to league vs player topics."For whatever reason"
Oh Gary.
This is ridiculous. Who has to pay to insure these contracts. If they want to participate in the Olympics then they should stay amateurs.
The point is, if they really want the Olympics, then they should control it by not having signed contracts worth a fortune. They get injured at the Olympics they don't lose a dime. Owners are taking all the financial risk.Well I agree with the first part.
But as for the 2nd part the amatuer status was lost in the late 60's early 70's by the Soviets, in the case of hockey.
Let me make this simple:Can all the people saying that NHL havent gained anything by the Olympics please show your numbers? I would bet not one of you can show any significant proof.
Let me make this simple:
If there was any kind of boost or growth, you'd see NHLers there.
These are businessmen who run their businesses to make money. If this increased the value of their investment they would be there.
These are greedy money-grubbing owners who saw no short term or longterm gains.
Money talks, and there isn't any of it.
Let me make this simple:
If there was any kind of boost or growth, you'd see NHLers there.
These are businessmen who run their businesses to make money. If this increased the value of their investment they would be there.
These are greedy money-grubbing owners who saw no short term or longterm gains.
Money talks, and there isn't any of it.
Make this case to the owners.So there is interest only in the hosting country? Is that what you are saying? I mean, the international players have been increasing and we have seen steady growth in many countries such as Denmark and Switzerland.
The NHL makes more money now than it did before 1998 and have a lot more international following. Its not only to new countries, but to get a stronger presence in countries like Sweden and Finland as well.
So there is interest only in the hosting country? Is that what you are saying? I mean, the international players have been increasing and we have seen steady growth in many countries such as Denmark and Switzerland.
The NHL makes more money now than it did before 1998 and have a lot more international following. Its not only to new countries, but to get a stronger presence in countries like Sweden and Finland as well.
Players had a deal to extend the cba and then the nhl would let them go they didn't want to
You really think the current deal is so bad it needs to be ended ASAP even if it means sacrificing the Olympics to do so?It wasn't a great deal for them
Which is why they're doing preseason and regular season games in those countries. But that's the NHL product. It's not like there's any direct conduit that turns Olympic interest into NHL interest. It's not like Swedes and Finns are unaware hockey exists, or that the NHL stands as its best league, or that their countries produce incredible players who almost all play in that league.
If anything, hoarding those great players into the NHL and making it the only platform where you can see those dudes play makes more business sense for the league than sharing them, even for 3 weeks every 4 years. Exclusivity. The NHL has the best product, it doesn't want to share access to it for free.
Just because NHL stands as its best league doesnt mean that people notice. If they see a Ovechkin, Malkin or Crosby they see why they should watch the NHL instead of SHL.
Most fans in sweden still ONLY cares for SHL and wouldnt watch an NHL game. It still needs to be seen and talked about more for most people to care. The olympics is a prime time for talking about other stars than the Mollers, Joel Lundqvists etc