Time to go back to the amateurs...or the juniors

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hasbro

Family Friend
Sponsor
Apr 1, 2004
52,414
16,382
South Rectangle
GermanGirl said:
What's the definition for "amateur" anyhow? Anyone who doesn't get paid?
I know in the US there's college hockey but there's nothing like it in Europe, so who sould play then?

I really really enjoy this tournament so far and that's even though my beloved German team is sucking pretty bad.
The difference between an amateur and proffesional is the professional gets paid with a check.
 

Jazz

Registered User
Slitty said:
1998 and 2002 were more intense because they were shorter 8 team tournaments. Thus, each game exhibited a higher skill coefficient when it came to players and was more meaningful. Now you have Kazahstan vs Latvia... although, the Swiss certainly made some headlines by beating the Czechs and Canadians.

In any case, I would go back to an 8-team tournament.

Group A:
Finland
Switzerland
Canada
Czech Republic


Group B:
Slovakia
Russia
USA
Sweden
The hockey world is now beyond this format (of only 8 teams)

In order to expand the hockey world, the 2nd tier of nations need to have a crack at the Elite group.

Actually, for the tournament seedings, Germany was 8th and Switzerland 9th, so this format would not have included Switzerland..... :teach: then this cinderella story would not have occured, and Swiss hockey would not have been given the boost it just got....

Also, only Kazakhstan is in over their head (outside the host Italians) - and the only reason they are here is because the Austrians choked on home ice during Qualifying. It would have been better to see Vanek, Divis instead, but it wasn't meant to be I guess...
 

12# Peter Bondra

Registered User
Apr 15, 2004
8,688
0
Funny part is, some Canadians were always saying: If pro's were let to play, we'd win all the time and we would be a lot better than with amateurs (pre 1998).
And now some Canadians want amateurs to play.

So do you want the pro's to play or no NHL'ers? :dunno:
 

Vladiator

Registered User
Jan 2, 2005
663
0
New Zealand
If you want to get rid of something, get rid of World Cup. Who wants to watch overweight, out-of-shape players playing in a watered-down competition, always in the same country?
 

deandebean

Registered User
Jan 14, 2003
15,486
2
Gatineau
Visit site
Jazz said:
We've got Pro basketball players, Pro tennis players, Pro soccer players, ie, EVERYONE are pros now....etc etc....Why should hockey be the only Olympic sport that does not use Pros? Are you trying to make hockey the joke of the Olympics?

Please tell me who is considered non-pro anyways, virtually every hockey player in Europe are payed something....

I do wish people stop it with the 'amateur' stuff - the Olypmics are about the best in the world - they only reason amateur was in there in the first place was because the modern Olympic founder Pierre de Coubertain was an elitist. It took them until the 1980s before 'the best' were allowed. Let's not go back to the stone age....

Thus the 'amatuer' arguement is about 20 years too late.

I should have described amateurs more. I don't mean this old amateur version. But NHLers at the Olympics won't last long. For one good reason: money. NHL owners have too much at stake to let their possessions get injured during a very meaningless (for them) tournament.

I would be shocked if the NHL stays after 2010. You guys should be applauding Vancouver for getting the Olympics. Because Torino would have been without the NHL if it were not for this last hurrah in North America.
 

Shoalzie

Trust me!
May 16, 2003
16,904
180
Portland, MI
Hasbro said:
I can't wait til people stop thinking Olympics=amateur


Exactly. We'll never see 1980 replicated not only because of the professional status of the players but also because of the political situation in the world. The Americans aren't at war with the Soviets anymore...and the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore. Why do people...mostly the hockey-ignorant American media believe the NHL shouldn't be at the Olympics? They need to let the Miracle on Ice go. It was a great moment but it'll never happen again...even if we went back to amateurs. American hockey is stronger than it was 26 years ago and even if they won with their amateurs, it's not an upset...these Olympic purists need to go away. It's an overly commercialized event now...nothing is sacred about it anymore. I love seeing the best players in the world play in the hockey tournament...be it that they're playing as pros or amateurs.
 

JVR

HeadHitsAreNotIllega
Jul 17, 2002
3,301
0
Visit site
deandebean said:
I should have described amateurs more. I don't mean this old amateur version. But NHLers at the Olympics won't last long. For one good reason: money. NHL owners have too much at stake to let their possessions get injured during a very meaningless (for them) tournament.

I would be shocked if the NHL stays after 2010. You guys should be applauding Vancouver for getting the Olympics. Because Torino would have been without the NHL if it were not for this last hurrah in North America.

So the Olympics would only be played with players from Europe players then? After all, it sure wouldn't be as bad for Cologne or Jokerit to lose their top-scorer during the season as it would be for Boston?
 

deandebean

Registered User
Jan 14, 2003
15,486
2
Gatineau
Visit site
GermanGirl said:
So the Olympics would only be played with players from Europe players then? After all, it sure wouldn't be as bad for Cologne or Jokerit to lose their top-scorer during the season as it would be for Boston?


Actually, the NHL could care less who goes. The owners (who control the most powerful hockey league in the world) won't go for it after 2010. At least, that's the talk here in North America.
 

SwisshockeyAcademy

Registered User
Dec 11, 2002
3,094
1
Visit site
If there are Canadians wishing for non NHLers they are in the minority. Most hockey fans want to see the best. I would not be out of bed this hour to watch Latvia and Russia if Russia did not have their NHL players.
 

SChan*

Guest
SwisshockeyAcademy said:
If there are Canadians wishing for non NHLers they are in the minority. Most hockey fans want to see the best. I would not be out of bed this hour to watch Latvia and Russia if Russia did not have their NHL players.

Exactly. This thread comes up everytime USA and Canada loses. It's so sad :shakehead
 

Hasbro

Family Friend
Sponsor
Apr 1, 2004
52,414
16,382
South Rectangle
Shoalzie said:
Exactly. We'll never see 1980 replicated not only because of the professional status of the players but also because of the political situation in the world. The Americans aren't at war with the Soviets anymore...and the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore. Why do people...mostly the hockey-ignorant American media believe the NHL shouldn't be at the Olympics? They need to let the Miracle on Ice go. It was a great moment but it'll never happen again...even if we went back to amateurs. American hockey is stronger than it was 26 years ago and even if they won with their amateurs, it's not an upset...these Olympic purists need to go away. It's an overly commercialized event now...nothing is sacred about it anymore. I love seeing the best players in the world play in the hockey tournament...be it that they're playing as pros or amateurs.
And this is just not conifined to hockey, the whole idea of amateurism is a load. It's just based on some outdated Victorian ideals that some inbred gentlemen would compete while the masses worked a 72 hour week in a mill. The powers that be had some friendly classisits conjure up the myth that the ancient Olympics didn't involve compensation.

All amateurism accomplished was making promoters rich, premature turnover of talent, and undue hardship and hassle for athletes. Go ask Jim Thorpe and Jesse Owens.
 

yarre

Registered User
Oct 13, 2005
931
0
Gothenburg
Would be very selfish of the NHL not to release players for the Olympics, the NA gets to see the best hockey players in the world every year, the rest of the world only every fourth year. What would be the point for European countries to continue putting money into their youth when they won't have a chance to watch them play for the national team at the Olympics? And don't give us the World Cup-argument, it isn't enough.
 

Bank Shot

Registered User
Jan 18, 2006
11,331
6,846
12# Peter Bondra said:
Funny part is, some Canadians were always saying: If pro's were let to play, we'd win all the time and we would be a lot better than with amateurs (pre 1998).
And now some Canadians want amateurs to play.

So do you want the pro's to play or no NHL'ers? :dunno:

Did you ever think that some Canadians might want to have stayed with amateurs?

Maybe Canadians don't speak with one voice and there are actually different camps of fans that want different things. :dunno:
 

yarre

Registered User
Oct 13, 2005
931
0
Gothenburg
Like I said, alot of selfishness in the idea's of not releasing NHL-players. I myself have never had the chance of following NHL live, only to see highlights afterwards, download games or listen to radio. Two weeks every four years isn't so bad eh? You get to see them all the time.
 

12# Peter Bondra

Registered User
Apr 15, 2004
8,688
0
Bank Shot said:
Did you ever think that some Canadians might want to have stayed with amateurs?

Maybe Canadians don't speak with one voice and there are actually different camps of fans that want different things. :dunno:
Thats why I said some Canadians wanted pro's, not all of them.

Funny part is, some Canadians were always saying
 

deandebean

Registered User
Jan 14, 2003
15,486
2
Gatineau
Visit site
yarre said:
Like I said, alot of selfishness in the idea's of not releasing NHL-players. I myself have never had the chance of following NHL live, only to see highlights afterwards, download games or listen to radio. Two weeks every four years isn't so bad eh? You get to see them all the time.


Actually, it's not about selfishness. It's about money. That's all that counts in the NHL.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I believe the World Cup brings money to the NHLPA fund. Someone might know about that.
 

David

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
2,007
0
Visit site
Zaddik said:
i think it's fine the way it is. it just needs to be more balanced... we all know canada is going to win the gold, it's just a matter of who's going to be second or third.

this is why i cheer for a team other than canada.


I think that this is the kind of attitude that lost the game for us yesterday.

Watch out, if this is what the players are thinking, they'll be packing their bags real soon!
 

Bank Shot

Registered User
Jan 18, 2006
11,331
6,846
Dan Wetzel wrote an article on Yahoo about time to move back to amateurs. Its no surprise that it came after USA's tie game with Latvia. Dan Wetzel is a dumbass.
 

Shoalzie

Trust me!
May 16, 2003
16,904
180
Portland, MI
Bank Shot said:
Dan Wetzel wrote an article on Yahoo about time to move back to amateurs. Its no surprise that it came after USA's tie game with Latvia. Dan Wetzel is a dumbass.


The American media should never write about something they don't know anything about. They won't say two words about the NHL but when the Gretzky/Tocchet scandal broke out...the haters were coming out of the woodwork. The media has no credibility with the hatchet job they were doing to Gretzky's image. As for the Olympics...I don't care what any of them think about that either. Unless there's a scandal or contraversy surrounding hockey, the media avoids the sport like the plague. Screw the American sports media!
 

artilector

Registered User
Jan 11, 2006
8,351
1,187
By now, an amateur athlete is worse than a pro by definition, since a pro commits all his time to a sport, and an amateur does not. Nobody wants to see amateurs, because everybody wants to see the best. The owners are the only ones interested in protecting their "assets", but that is a short-sighted and economically unjustified approach, to say nothing of the rest.

What I want to know is - if you are a hockey fan, what can possibly be your reason for not wanting to see the best players competing against each other, representing your country?? Can someone offer a reason??? The only thing that even remotely comes to mind is that you don't want your favorite player injured... nevermind that the risk, when averaged out, is so small... but wouldn't you rather see him injured busting his rear for the glory of his country than in a regular season NHL game? Isn't a classic matchup like Russia vs. Canada in a do-or-die game orders of magnitude more exciting than Tampa Friggin Bay Lighting vs Calgary Flames? How can you not dream of seeing Nash-Thornton-Heatley head to head against Kovalchuk-Datsyuk-Kovalev, then Bertuzzi-Sakic-Gagne against Ovechkin-Yashin-whatever on the next shift??

I'm really curious whether anyone can provide a reason.. Is it fear of losing? Is it narrow provincialism? Is it a completely alien understanding of what makes hockey beautiful? What is it???
 

deandebean

Registered User
Jan 14, 2003
15,486
2
Gatineau
Visit site
artilector said:
By now, an amateur athlete is worse than a pro by definition, since a pro commits all his time to a sport, and an amateur does not. Nobody wants to see amateurs, because everybody wants to see the best. The owners are the only ones interested in protecting their "assets", but that is a short-sighted and economically unjustified approach, to say nothing of the rest.

What I want to know is - if you are a hockey fan, what can possibly be your reason for not wanting to see the best players competing against each other, representing your country?? Can someone offer a reason??? The only thing that even remotely comes to mind is that you don't want your favorite player injured... nevermind that the risk, when averaged out, is so small... but wouldn't you rather see him injured busting his rear for the glory of his country than in a regular season NHL game? Isn't a classic matchup like Russia vs. Canada in a do-or-die game orders of magnitude more exciting than Tampa Friggin Bay Lighting vs Calgary Flames? How can you not dream of seeing Nash-Thornton-Heatley head to head against Kovalchuk-Datsyuk-Kovalev, then Bertuzzi-Sakic-Gagne against Ovechkin-Yashin-whatever on the next shift??

I'm really curious whether anyone can provide a reason.. Is it fear of losing? Is it narrow provincialism? Is it a completely alien understanding of what makes hockey beautiful? What is it???

I'm not so sure we're seeing hockey at its peek: NHL calendar way to compressed, players forfitting, Olympic calendar pretty much as compressed...

And the great matchups died with the fall of the Soviet empire. None is left. All we see is NHLers against NHLers. The refreshing point up to date is the play of the Swiss.

Matchups between East and West were classics because of all the political implications. Now, there's nothing coming close to that.
 

Snap Wilson

Registered User
Sep 14, 2003
5,838
0
After 2010, you'll probably have your wish.

This Olympic tournament can only be classified a failure, partially because of the compressed schedule, which was a consideration thrown to the NHL, who wanted to play games right up to Monday. The Olympics using NHL players will always have problems if the NHL treats it like a red-headed stepchild.

Having said that, Olympics with the amateurs has more or less sucked throughout the years. The really memorable events (Miracle on Ice, Forsberg shootout) have been few and far between, and good luck getting the coverage we're getting now without NHL players.

I like to see the world's best compete on an ideal international stage.

This could easily be solved by the NHL allowing the teams to play from the moment the Olympics start, which would have eliminated the back-to-back games.

The other change that should be made is allowing only the top three from each group to qualify and giving the top team in each group a bye, which would make the preliminary games more meaningful. Would we have seen the U.S. and Sweden ease off in the third period if it meant one of them could be out? Heck no. Would the Swiss-Czech upset have been a heck of a lot more meaningful? You bet.

As it is, with the compressed schedule and the qualifiers very likely determined by the end of the day today, no team is going to try very hard on Tuesday. What's the point of bringing pros to play if they're more concerned with avoiding getting hurt than winning the game?
 

artilector

Registered User
Jan 11, 2006
8,351
1,187
deandebean said:
I'm not so sure we're seeing hockey at its peek: NHL calendar way to compressed, players forfitting, Olympic calendar pretty much as compressed...

And the great matchups died with the fall of the Soviet empire. None is left. All we see is NHLers against NHLers. The refreshing point up to date is the play of the Swiss.

Matchups between East and West were classics because of all the political implications. Now, there's nothing coming close to that.

Yeah, its not the same as CCCP vs. Canada, maybe an order of magnitude below, but still an order of magnitude above anything else. What does it matter if they play in the same league, they still represent their countries! Same as in soccer, where all the players from the entire world play all over the place in the Europe's leagues, but when the World Cup comes, its Brazil vs. Italy, even if 80% of Brazilians play in Italy. Does not make it one bit less interesting!
 

artilector

Registered User
Jan 11, 2006
8,351
1,187
moneyp said:
After 2010, you'll probably have your wish.

This Olympic tournament can only be classified a failure, partially because of the compressed schedule, which was a consideration thrown to the NHL, who wanted to play games right up to Monday. The Olympics using NHL players will always have problems if the NHL treats it like a red-headed stepchild.

Having said that, Olympics with the amateurs has more or less sucked throughout the years. The really memorable events (Miracle on Ice, Forsberg shootout) have been few and far between, and good luck getting the coverage we're getting now without NHL players.

I like to see the world's best compete on an ideal international stage.

This could easily be solved by the NHL allowing the teams to play from the moment the Olympics start, which would have eliminated the back-to-back games.

The other change that should be made is allowing only the top three from each group to qualify and giving the top team in each group a bye, which would make the preliminary games more meaningful. Would we have seen the U.S. and Sweden ease off in the third period if it meant one of them could be out? Heck no. Would the Swiss-Czech upset have been a heck of a lot more meaningful? You bet.

As it is, with the compressed schedule and the qualifiers very likely determined by the end of the day today, no team is going to try very hard on Tuesday. What's the point of bringing pros to play if they're more concerned with avoiding getting hurt than winning the game?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->