Pushkin said:
According to the IIHF you have 435 000 registered players. I know it's not a popular sport in your country if divided by your total population...But still 435 000 is second only to Canada and almost about 350 000 more than the Czech the Russian the Swedes and The Finns so there is no excuse for such bad showing.The minor programs must be horrible it's unconceivable. Appart from a couple of "lucky" wins on US soil you have been most of the time terrible elsewhere.
Unfortunately, those statistics are misleading. In many countries that are international powers, the best athletes migrate to hockey. Or at the very least, hockey is near the top spot along with soccer. With the United States, it's completely different. The best athletes rarely end up in hockey as they are encouraged to play the more popular sports such as football/basketball/baseball. And most athletes, especially those in the U.S. where the wealth and support is there, are multisport stars at younger ages. This is true with hockey players. Many of the best hockey players that I knew where also baseball or football players. And when push came to shove and they reached the point in their career where they had to pick a sport and focus on it, hockey loses out. This is why the U.S. does not have the talent to match up with their numbers. The U.S.' best hockey players are in other sports. But things are slowly changing. Since 2002, the U.S. has had a strong presence in the NHL draft could take two or three of the top 5 spots in the upcoming draft. There was a blip in the radar during around the 70's that saw very little U.S. hockey talent produced. That's why you see the lack of international success.
Hockey has unique demographical and geographical limitations within the U.S. Only a small percentage of the U.S. has a wintery climate such as Canada, Norway, Finland, Russia, Czech Republic, Sweden, and Slovakia. Excluding Canada, only Russia has land as close to the equator as the U.S.'s farthest point (excluding Alaska). Russia's southernmost point is roughly equivalent to Chicago. And a majority of their people live considerably further north than this point. The U.S. is by far the closest hockey country to the equator and has by far the mildest winters (on average) of any of the big hockey nations.
And traditionally, hockey's biggest success is not in the urban areas of major cities. It has been in the rural areas where frozen ponds reign supreme. But a sizeable percentage of the wintery climate populations rest in big cities. Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, New York City, etc all hold a large percentage of the U.S. citizens in what could be considered as hockey climate. Access to ice time in these areas is severely restricted as many kids don't have the luxury of a large frozen pond in their back yard. Ice time is absolutely critical to the development of top hockey players.
When you factor in the overall drawing power of hockey to youths with a climate/environment that is not conducive to hockey, I think it's a testament to the U.S. that they are even competing at the higher levels. The only reason why anyone would think the U.S. could possibly compete is based on the sheer volume of people that live in the country. Every other sign points to this being a bad hockey nation.