Would you shell out for a WNHL?

[lemieux32*]

Primetime- You are clueless. The NHL has never had a big enough national TV contract to make it a TV driven league a la the NFL or MLB. Those two leagues could give out free tix and not sell concessions and at least break even. The NHL has never had a contract big enough to do that. It's interesting, as usual, you have decided to gloss over certain things I said. Not surprised.

The_Eck- Considering the first women's world championship wasn't held until 1990 (when she was about 12) it's obvious why St. Pierre looked up to Roy...she had no women to look up to, unlike girls growing up today. So there goes your rebuttal.

 

[Kfarschman]

Why is woman's tennis so popular now?? Sex appeal. (Kournikova, Sharapova)
Also, woman's tennis is actually enjoyable to watch compared to the men's boring power tennis game. Woman's hockey is just not enjoyable to watch. Hockey is a sport meant to play at top speed, with hard hitting and intimidation which the women's game does not offer.
End of discussion

Okay, when was the last time Kournikova even played? Actually my favorite player is Davenport, and not because of her "sex appeal", but because she's good and fun to watch. I find that men and women tennis are both equally interesting to watch. The women don't hit the ball as hard, but that doesn't seem to effect it's popularity. It's all relative, Federer would crush Davenport, but that doesn't make Davenport vs. Sharapova less interesting or pointless.

I would put strategy, skating, passing, puckhandling, goaltending and positioning, all as more important than intimidation and hard hitting in hockey. I'm not saying hitting or more importantly checking (especially on forechecking) isn't important, but if you can out skate them you can dodge those "hard" hits causing them to be out of position after missing. I think the best defenseman is Niklas Lindstrom and he really doesn't utilize big hits. Intimidation can come from a team being intimidated of the others skills, not just "oh no, their goons might rack up some penalties when they head hunt". Anyways I bet there would be some good hitting if they allowed body checking in women's hockey, which I think they should.

 

[Brad Tolliver]

There is no chance in hell of a professional national women's hockey league succeeding if the highest level is about equivalent to a non-checking version of college club (not varsity) hockey. There is no way they can afford to pay the players given all the other costs involved.

Don't like it? Then start playing at a higher level, it's not a coincidence that the higher the level the higher the fan support. Roller hockey on ice isn't it.

 

[The_Eck]

Okay, when was the last time Kournikova even played? Actually my favorite player is Davenport, and not because of her "sex appeal", but because she's good and fun to watch. I find that men and women tennis are both equally interesting to watch. The women don't hit the ball as hard, but that doesn't seem to effect it's popularity. It's all relative, Federer would crush Davenport, but that doesn't make Davenport vs. Sharapova less interesting or pointless.

I would put strategy, skating, passing, puckhandling, goaltending and positioning, all as more important than intimidation and hard hitting in hockey. I'm not saying hitting or more importantly checking (especially on forechecking) isn't important, but if you can out skate them you can dodge those "hard" hits causing them to be out of position after missing. I think the best defenseman is Niklas Lindstrom and he really doesn't utilize big hits. Intimidation can come from a team being intimidated of the others skills, not just "oh no, their goons might rack up some penalties when they head hunt". Anyways I bet there would be some good hitting if they allowed body checking in women's hockey, which I think they should.

Women's tennis was more popular when Kournikova played. In Montreal, for her first round match against a complete unknown, the stadium was completely packed. Like it or not, sex appeal is a huge factor in gaining audience for women's tennis. Now we have the Sharapova appeal, she's hot and a damn good tennis player as well.

I'm sorry but women's hockey has no appeal whatsoever in terms of entertainment. The pace is just too slow.

 

[Kfarschman]

Well the players probably wouldn't need that much money, it would be something they do on top of their real jobs. Atleast untill or if it got more popular and they could be paid more.

 

[Brad Tolliver]

It would be a good thing that they wouldn't need much money, because given the economics involved they will probably have to be the ones paying to play. I am sure you are going to get a ton of players quitting their real jobs to play hockey, because realistically that's the committment you are going to need if you want to be a legit high-level hockey player.

 

[Kfarschman]

Like it or not, sex appeal is a huge factor in gaining audience for women's tennis. Now we have the Sharapova appeal, she's hot and a damn good tennis player as well.

Not to be mean at all because I really like them, but how much sex appeal does , Kim Clijsters, Amelie Mauresmo, Lindsay Davenport, Justine Henin-Hardenne, and Mary Pierce have? And those are ranked 1,2,3,5,6 skipping over 4th ranked Sharapova. They all have big followings and can fill a court. Kournakova didn't just have fans because she had sex appeal. She spoke english really well and was charismatic, and won a bunch of doubles tournaments many with Martina Hingis who also was very charismatic.

 

[LadyJet26]

Kim St-Pierre idolized Patrick Roy when she was younger. So there goes that argument.

Yeah but there were no women in the spotlight were there?

 

[Brad Tolliver]

Yeah but there were no women in the spotlight were there?

Didn't stop her from playing hockey, did it?

 

[The_Eck]

Not to be mean at all because I really like them, but how much sex appeal does , Kim Clijsters, Amelie Mauresmo, Lindsay Davenport, Justine Henin-Hardenne, and Mary Pierce have? And those are ranked 1,2,3,5,6 skipping over 4th ranked Sharapova. They all have big followings and can fill a court. Kournakova didn't just have fans because she had sex appeal. She spoke english really well and was charismatic, and won a bunch of doubles tournaments many with Martina Hingis who also was very charismatic.

Like it or not, Kournikova was a huge draw mainly because of her beautiful looks. Don't kid yourself thinking it was something else. In today's woman's tennis, the audience, especially male, are drawn to sharapova mainly due to her physical attributes and not her talents as a tennis player. I must admit, when kournikova use to play tennis, I wasn't drawn by her tennis abilities but by other things as were most other men were. Call it sexist, but that's reality.

 

[deandebean]

The league exists, it attracts very poor crowds, it is slower than midget AAA in this province, and it's not very interesting on big olympic ice if you ask me. Women hockey would be better served at the international level on north american size ice, because of the speed of their game.

You can't compare the two hockeys, it's like comparing junior B to the NHL. But you need to realize that in order to operate, the women league has to attract the normal fan. And it's tough to do it in markets where junior hockey has a very large fan base (and is a more competitive).

The new crop of female players coming from the minor league levels (right now at the pee-wee and bantam levels) will be much better than what we're seeing now. We should wait for them to arrive before comparing.

 

[Pensfan86]

being a college student on the east coast, I love checking out a hockey game at 10:30, 1pm,etc... albeit a women's game, its a luxury that's hard to come by --- that being said however, I don;t think I'd ever watch women's hockey if it were on during normal hours, or if there were anything else remotely interesting on tv...i mean, during the mid-day my options are basically espn for the 900th time, soap operas, or olympic events i dont have a real grasp on, such as curling...to answer the question though, do i think it would work...definitely not -- sure girls who play hockey are going to want to go to games, but i'd imagine that there are more women soccer players in NA than there are hockey players, and the fan support was not that good for the women's pro soccer league that was up and running a few years back...what makes you think hockey would be any different?

 

[McDonald19]

Would it have a shot in hell? If the WNBA can last a decade, could the WNHL have a chance?

the WNBA exists because the NBA lets it exist. I'm pretty sure it loses money every year and the NBA obsorbs the loss because they feel it's the right thing to do.

 

[Mr Brownstone]

I wouldn't pay to see it unless it was like a USA Women's Hockey Team tour for breast cancer research or some other organization. Other than that, and if it were a league, no chance in hell.

 

[Gord]

i'll keep my answer simple. I wouldn't pay a dime to watch a woman's pro league.

the best way to do it to me, if the quality of the ice could keep up, is how the Australians did it with their pro basketball league. when I was there if you bought a ticket for the men's game, you'd get the womans game beforehand for free.
people would show up early, watch some or all of the women's game and it they would get them crowds and exposure. and then still have the main feature of the mens game to follow.