TSN: More than 200 players call for overhaul of women’s pro hockey

210

Registered User
Mar 5, 2003
12,393
961
Worcester, MA
210sportsblog.com
Yeah, they could play 365 games. too.

But they dont.

So your comment is irrelevant.

Of course you think it's irrelevant, because it doesn't fit your narrative. And your comment "they could play 365 games" certainly looks to me like a desperate attempt to dismiss any argument that the NWHL could play more games. But the fact remains that the NWHL could easily can play more games, making your "96 hour" comment even sillier, because the CWHL played nearly double what the NWHL does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Captain Crash

SemireliableSource

Liter-a-cola
Sep 30, 2006
1,904
210
HSV
The irony of people comparing the level of play to boys youth hockey not seeing that they essentially agree with the players is hilarious.

Part of the argument of the players is that they can't grow the game and raise the level of play without proper support systems allowing them time to properly train an develop. Considering the NHL, and others, claim to support women's hockey and that they want to help grow the game, the women are just asking those parties to actually put their money where their mouths are.

Plus, those boys are given the chance to develop and become better players because ... other people pay for their hockey.
 

Barclay Donaldson

Registered User
Feb 4, 2018
2,531
2,058
Tatooine
The irony of people comparing the level of play to boys youth hockey not seeing that they essentially agree with the players is hilarious.

Part of the argument of the players is that they can't grow the game and raise the level of play without proper support systems allowing them time to properly train an develop. Considering the NHL, and others, claim to support women's hockey and that they want to help grow the game, the women are just asking those parties to actually put their money where their mouths are.

Plus, those boys are given the chance to develop and become better players because ... other people pay for their hockey.

So they're asking people to lose millions of dollars because no one wants to watch women play. Why will they lose millions of dollars? Because, as we've stated, it's "pro hockey" that's comparable to 18 years old boys. For any arguments that it will help grow and develop the game, see the WNBA and how they're losing more than $10 million per year.
 

SemireliableSource

Liter-a-cola
Sep 30, 2006
1,904
210
HSV
I'm not asking anything, I'm simply pointing out irony and stating facts.

Also, the NHL has no qualms about dropping money on women's hockey. They just don't like the NWHL model and didn't like the CWHL's either. The NHL has ideas and plans in place that they'd like to implement, they just don't want to force the NWHL to shut down as that wouldn't be great for PR but should that happen, the NHL has ideas of how they would like to run things.

Re: WNBA. I think the things women's hockey has right are rink sizes. As with the FHL (horrible comparison because that league is a shit show), smaller rinks = lower overhead. The WNBA is starting to get better, some of the teams playing in the larger buildings are the ones playing essentially rent-free in their NBA counterpart's buildings that are operated by the NBA teams and some teams have moved into smaller (4-7k seating) buildings but you still have teams like Las Vegas playing in a 12k arena while averaging about 5,200.

Minnesota was an odd add for the NWHL and the CWHL was far-flung before they even added Chinese teams, but I think you can further help the overhead costs by having maybe an eight-team league, four east and four west, and keeping travel down. Only play in your division/conference until the championship series which would help with travel costs.

In the east, you could have Boston, Metropolitan, Montreal, and Toronto. Who knows how long Connecticut can last without an NHL partner and Pegula Sports and Entertainment is examining if they find it worthwhile to continue the Beauts. If those two do stick around, maybe the league could have 12 teams. The west could be Minnesota, Calgary if the Flames wanted to jump in, maybe Winnipeg, etc.

Hell, they could ever do a three-division set-up with the four eastern American NWHL teams in the East; Montreal, Toronto, Brampton/Markham, and ??? in the North; Minnesota and whoever else in the West. Top eight make the playoffs regardless of division.

I don't know what the NHL has in mind but there's clearly some value seen by these franchises to help out local women's teams and the reports of the NHL having plans are coming from people I trust.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CrazyEddie20

Barclay Donaldson

Registered User
Feb 4, 2018
2,531
2,058
Tatooine
I'm not asking anything, I'm simply pointing out irony and stating facts.

Also, the NHL has no qualms about dropping money on women's hockey. They just don't like the NWHL model and didn't like the CWHL's either. The NHL has ideas and plans in place that they'd like to implement, they just don't want to force the NWHL to shut down as that wouldn't be great for PR but should that happen, the NHL has ideas of how they would like to run things.

Re: WNBA. I think the things women's hockey has right are rink sizes. As with the FHL (horrible comparison because that league is a **** show), smaller rinks = lower overhead. The WNBA is starting to get better, some of the teams playing in the larger buildings are the ones playing essentially rent-free in their NBA counterpart's buildings that are operated by the NBA teams and some teams have moved into smaller (4-7k seating) buildings but you still have teams like Las Vegas playing in a 12k arena while averaging about 5,200.

Minnesota was an odd add for the NWHL and the CWHL was far-flung before they even added Chinese teams, but I think you can further help the overhead costs by having maybe an eight-team league, four east and four west, and keeping travel down. Only play in your division/conference until the championship series which would help with travel costs.

In the east, you could have Boston, Metropolitan, Montreal, and Toronto. Who knows how long Connecticut can last without an NHL partner and Pegula Sports and Entertainment is examining if they find it worthwhile to continue the Beauts. If those two do stick around, maybe the league could have 12 teams. The west could be Minnesota, Calgary if the Flames wanted to jump in, maybe Winnipeg, etc.

Hell, they could ever do a three-division set-up with the four eastern American NWHL teams in the East; Montreal, Toronto, Brampton/Markham, and ??? in the North; Minnesota and whoever else in the West. Top eight make the playoffs regardless of division.

I don't know what the NHL has in mind but there's clearly some value seen by these franchises to help out local women's teams and the reports of the NHL having plans are coming from people I trust.

The Pegulas are only considering dropping the Beauts just now because they're demanding an unreasonable sum. If employees demand more than they're worth, you don't sign them. If Jake Gardiner demands $15 million per season, you don't give it to him. Because he's not worth that much. If Fed players demand a livable wage, the league flops. Because no one wants to watch them at the increased price. Because there's higher quality hockey to watch at a lower price. And as much as the Fed is a gong show, it's well above the NWHL in quality.

The WNBA is 20 years into their existence and has been declining since peaking well before 2000. Yes, WNBA attendance is comparable to the AHL. Their tickets are also $10-$20 rather than $30-$50. It's not nearly as popular as the NBA. It's not even as popular as women's college hoops. Their TV spots are notoriously some of the least watched basketball slots in the nation. You're trying to expand the league with teams when no one even wants to watch the teams that exist right now. The CWHL tried to pay their players better and they folded in a season.

The WNBA is also playing essentially for free with minimal costs other than paying their players and travel. And guess what? They're still losing $10 million per season. Despite free TV time and publicity. They get like $25 million from ESPN as a charity gift. People want to watch high quality hockey. And women's hockey will never be as good as men's hockey, it's just never going to happen. The WNBA teams would still get murdered by NBA teams, despite 20 years and something well over $100 million in loses. It's not able to compete on or off the court. WNBA averages a fraction, yes a fraction, of the pro bowling league.

Would you pay Fed players a living wage? No, because the hockey isn't that good and because the league would fold with the increased costs. It's not sexist to pay them what they're getting paid. It's sexist to give on sex over the other a completely unfair advantage. And paying lower quality players, who lose to high school aged boys who I will admit are above average for their age group, regardless of what sex they are isn't okay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cyclones Rock

Cyclones Rock

Registered User
Jun 12, 2008
10,484
6,370
The irony of people comparing the level of play to boys youth hockey not seeing that they essentially agree with the players is hilarious.

Part of the argument of the players is that they can't grow the game and raise the level of play without proper support systems allowing them time to properly train an develop. Considering the NHL, and others, claim to support women's hockey and that they want to help grow the game, the women are just asking those parties to actually put their money where their mouths are.

Plus, those boys are given the chance to develop and become better players because ... other people pay for their hockey.


Have you ever heard of Title IX? Plenty of resources of allocated towards girls hockey.

If you think throwing a couple hundred million dollars more at girls hockey development programs is going to significantly impact the level of play, then you are dreaming.
 

SemireliableSource

Liter-a-cola
Sep 30, 2006
1,904
210
HSV
I was clearly talking the women's hockey. The only reason boy's hockey was included in my post was referencing the already mentioned. I was saying if we want to grow the women's game and there are people who 1) have the resources; and 2) claim to have the desire, they should do it. IMO, "growing" the game isn't just limited to raising the level of play. The NHL is already working the angle of growing female interest and it's working out for them.

To answer your question: yes, I am well aware of Title IX. I used to work in college athletics and later covered them for a bit. Title IX has no bearing on a men's professional hockey league supporting a women's hockey league.
 

Barclay Donaldson

Registered User
Feb 4, 2018
2,531
2,058
Tatooine
I was clearly talking the women's hockey. The only reason boy's hockey was included in my post was referencing the already mentioned. I was saying if we want to grow the women's game and there are people who 1) have the resources; and 2) claim to have the desire, they should do it. IMO, "growing" the game isn't just limited to raising the level of play. The NHL is already working the angle of growing female interest and it's working out for them.

To answer your question: yes, I am well aware of Title IX. I used to work in college athletics and later covered them for a bit. Title IX has no bearing on a men's professional hockey league supporting a women's hockey league.

A league with the quality of decent U18 boys hockey. A league that will lose money if they’re paid a decent wage. If the quality of play was any good, they wouldn’t need to be propped up. People would go to see it if it were any good.

So we should prop all low quality hockey leagues because it’s good for the game? Where does it stop? Should we grow Major League Lacrosse because it’s good to grow the sport. Pay them a living wage and the league will collapse. They should be happy with what they have. It isn’t much, but the CWHL tried to pay them more than they were worth and they collapsed in a season
 

CrazyEddie20

Hey RuZZia - Cut Your Losses and Go Home.
Jun 26, 2007
1,891
1,201
Back of a cop car
You know, it'd be really terrible if the NHL supported a women's hockey league that would inspire girls to play hockey and grow the fanbase. They should actually do more to shut women off from enjoyment of hockey. Maybe they should only let women into games if they're wearing burqas, prohibit them from drinking beer at games, stop playing pop music... yeah, that's the ticket. They need to do more to appeal less to 50 percent of the population!

So much stupid misogyny in this thread.
 

Barclay Donaldson

Registered User
Feb 4, 2018
2,531
2,058
Tatooine
You know, it'd be really terrible if the NHL supported a women's hockey league that would inspire girls to play hockey and grow the fanbase. They should actually do more to shut women off from enjoyment of hockey. Maybe they should only let women into games if they're wearing burqas, prohibit them from drinking beer at games, stop playing pop music... yeah, that's the ticket. They need to do more to appeal less to 50 percent of the population!

So much stupid misogyny in this thread.

It’s always easy when it’s someone else's money. The NHL is a business. It owes nothing to no one. It’s insanity to be a permanent charity, like the NBA is with the WNBA. Tens of millions of dollars lost each year.

How about they start investing in Timbits and youth hockey and making it more accessible to more lower class people? You know, rather than a league that, like the WNBA has proven after 20 years of existence, is a charity case that loses money and doesn’t “inspire girls.”
 

Centrum Hockey

Registered User
Aug 2, 2018
2,089
727
It’s always easy when it’s someone else's money. The NHL is a business. It owes nothing to no one. It’s insanity to be a permanent charity, like the NBA is with the WNBA. Tens of millions of dollars lost each year.

How about they start investing in Timbits and youth hockey and making it more accessible to more lower class people? You know, rather than a league that, like the WNBA has proven after 20 years of existence, is a charity case that loses money and doesn’t “inspire girls.”
The WNBA is a big deal In places like Seattle the city went out of there way to fund and take care of a money losing business. In extremely progressive citys they probably can find funding for a nhl backed women’s league probably not in places like Florida and Texas though.
 
Last edited:

Barclay Donaldson

Registered User
Feb 4, 2018
2,531
2,058
Tatooine
The WNBA is a big deal In places like Seattle the city went out of there way to fund and take care of a money losing business. In extremely progressive citys they probably can find funding for a nhl backed women’s league probably not in places like Florida and Texas though.

There’s not many cities that are as liberal as Seattle. It’s also a sport throats predominantly popular in the North and Northeast, unlike basketball which is popular everywhere. So considering most women’s hockey teams play in rec rinks in front of a few dozen people at the most, I can’t see any city giving them a break for the good of hockey. WNBA actually draws thousands of people, although it’s been declining since 2000 and the ticket prices are peanuts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Centrum Hockey

210

Registered User
Mar 5, 2003
12,393
961
Worcester, MA
210sportsblog.com
It’s always easy when it’s someone else's money. The NHL is a business. It owes nothing to no one. It’s insanity to be a permanent charity, like the NBA is with the WNBA. Tens of millions of dollars lost each year.

How about they start investing in Timbits and youth hockey and making it more accessible to more lower class people? You know, rather than a league that, like the WNBA has proven after 20 years of existence, is a charity case that loses money and doesn’t “inspire girls.”

How do you know this?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Captain Crash

Barclay Donaldson

Registered User
Feb 4, 2018
2,531
2,058
Tatooine
How do you know this?

Because youth basketball participation has steadily decreased. If the WNBA was really inspiring girls to play, with it being in operation for over 20 years, then girls basketball participation would be through the roof. Only thing I can find in a quick search is from 2012 which says less than 1/4 of all youth basketball players are girls. If they were really such an attractive thing, don't you think there would have been an explosion in female youth basketball numbers, or at least steady growth considering it is on the TV, tickets are cheap, they're in big markets, it's ever-present. No such gigantic bump exists. It's actually trending downwards. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...are-still-left-behind/?utm_term=.2450cfccf9cb This is the only decent graph I could find that shows all the sports in comparison.

Now there are other factors like kids just not playing sports since just about every sport is down in participation. Kids play video games, it's very expensive, all the normal things. Hockey is one of the few sports that has seen growth and lacrosse has seen big growth in the past decade plus.

Are they inspiring young girls? Yeah, probably. Is it enough to even show a growth in kids actually playing the sport? Nope. Well those young girls, with the earlier ones now grown up, are all know watching it on TV? Not in big enough numbers? Despite free product placement, good TV slots, and everything else that's been mentioned, it's only 200,000 per game. For reference, that's the same amount as a professional bowling league game. Edit: WNBA is less than half the average viewership of the pro bowling league, was looking at the wrong data.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Cyclones Rock

Barclay Donaldson

Registered User
Feb 4, 2018
2,531
2,058
Tatooine
You've apparently completely discounted that it could inspire young people to excel at other things.

That's absolutely insane. Give the girls actual role models then, not ones who might not even be particularly skilled outside of sport. Michelle Obama is a great one regardless of your political views, Oprah, Malala, etc. There's better ways to influence and inspire young girls than a women's pro hockey that would lose half their games to 18 year old boys and would lose millions of dollars.

You're presenting a completely unreasonable argument, as opposed to the economically unsound argument that has so far been presented. There's more effective ways to fund role models. You're looking at a sociological problem. And funding an full-fledged girls pro hockey league is not the solution. It's not even in the same room as the solution.
 

JMCx4

Censorship is the Sincerest Form of Flattery
Sep 3, 2017
13,476
8,328
St. Louis, MO
Latest from Hilary Knight's perspective ...
Top women’s hockey players resolute in fight for new league

By WILL GRAVES
an hour ago (10 November 2019)


PITTSBURGH (AP) — Hilary Knight has a gold medal. What she would like is a full-time job. Not just for her. For the other 200-plus members of the Professional Women’s Hockey Players’ Association too. One that pays all of them well enough to simply go play instead of forcing most to find side gigs just to get by. One that provides adequate medical insurance. One that provides something resembling stability.

At the moment, the forward who scored the first goal for Team USA in the 2018 Olympic gold medal game victory over Canada doesn’t believe such a job exists. It’s why Knight and the rest of the PWHPA announced in May they would not play in North America during the 2019-2020 season, a decision that meant the 30-year-old would be sacrificing at least one winter — if not more — of her prime in the pursuit of something resembling equality.

Six months into a self-imposed sabbatical, Knight is equal parts anxious and resolute. Asked how long the PWHPA can hold out and she’s politely blunt.

“I don’t think there’s a set answer to that,” she said. “Obviously, as players, we want to compete. We want to play in a league right now. However, we don’t have a league right now to play in so my answer would be, ‘Yesterday is too long.’ But at the same time, it’s as long as it takes for us to fulfill our needs of finding a sustainable, viable solution.” ...

Read more at: https://apnews.com/08c01758479440ac82f4fc7cb716c853
 

Dingle

summer is gone
Nov 22, 2019
765
208
This is old, but worth resuscitating.

The WNBA claims loses of $10 million per year. Okay, the NBA is a principal backer. The NBA makes money hand over fist. There are 30 teams. So $10 million in loses is $333 K or so per team. UHHHH..A league that is principally male driven, that has to fight chauvinism charges. That has to have women's group protest WNBA conditions. That had the players running commercials about unfair pay.
Did I mention, makes money hand over fist?
Would it not be wise for owners to get together and say..hey rather than $333 K per team. Let us step up to an even $1 Million per team. The WNBA gets a further $20 million. 1/2 goes to salaries, which effectively doubles if not triples them and the other 1/2 to expenses. Then Adam Silver looks like the biggest feminist around and everyone is happy !!!!!

Also, I read a Forbes magazine that claims the WNBA generates ~ 60 million per year (The author got fired..the article was about getting more money for women). So 60 million plus 10 million in loses..70 million total operating for 14 teams..or about 4 million a team.

We have the CFL up here..pro football. Salaries ~ $6 million. Operating budgets for teams ~ $15 million. Can someone tell me how the CFL operates at $15 million and the WNBA at $4 million, including salaries. Maybe the WNBA operates at the same $15 million. So, the net league is at 14 x 15 = 210 million. They generate 60 million. It leaves 150 million in loses..

so they cut corners and spend a total of $10 million a team..$140 total, less 60..means the NBA is probably picking up a tab of $90 million. Or about $3 million a team. It is why the WNBA does not expand. It is why Messi Ugeri shrugged and dogged a reporters question about bringing a WNBA team to Toronto..The NBA does not want to add another $10 M to that pot.

the economic model of women's team professional sports will probably not work.

Can you imagine a 12 team WNHL. Generating about $40-$50 million and spending the same $10 million per team or 120 for the whole league. Does anyone realistically expect that a cash strapped league like the NHL can shell out about $3 million per team????? Eugene Melnyk would have a heart attack.
 
Last edited:

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->