Would you watch a televised women's league?

[ujju2]

Yes if Edmonton had a team or if checking was added. No if there is no checking and Edmonton doesn't have a team.

 

[ThatsSoSlavin]

They already have a women’s league that’s going under, no need to have a second.

as much as it would be great to have, people won’t spend money to watch slower hockey, which would cause the league to fold (currently happening if I’m not mistaken)

 

[Jacksonbobson]

I wouldn't watch any hockey league that didn't have hitting.

Women's MMA is a great watch because it is the same sport as the mens.

 

[kp61c]

I'm not interested in watching much beyond NHL so I don't see why i'd watch a women only league.
I thought it was cool how Tampa had a lady play in net for a few games and I really feel like Wickenheiser was just a tiny notch away from making it in the NHL.
I'd be more than happy to see women share the ice in the NHL with men.
It's just a matter of time till we have a woman that's good enough. Maybe 10 or 20 years but it'll eventually happen on day.
That I'll praise till the cows come home.

that is just beyond absurd.

 

[Kcb12345]

If they had a Dallas or Texas team then I'd probably catch games every once in a while

 

[7even]

I'd give it a shot if it were streamable. I've enjoyed watching the ladies' events at the past two ASGs more than I thought I would.

 

[BlueBaron]

Yeah I'd follow them in the news assuming Toronto had a team, I'd be a casual fan at best though. I watch thee Women's International stuff and that is pretty good hockey, lots of skill on display.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

I voted no, but it's probably closer to I'd tune in if there was absolutely nothing else on TV and just out of curiosity. But unless the skill level improves dramatically, I can't see myself ever sitting down to regularly watch women's hockey.

 

[HugginThePost]

The hockey fan in me wants to say "yes", but the harsh reality is unless my daughter was playing, I just don't see me tuning in.

I only catch the Finals when the Olympics roll around......because we all know who is going to be playing.

I probably only watch that game because it's Canada vs USA.

If it was Canada vs Latvia........meh, not sure I'd tune in even then.

As it's been said, it's hard to make time to follow your "own" team, let alone another one.

 

[Jack Flask]

I wouldn't watch any hockey league that didn't have hitting.

Women's MMA is a great watch because it is the same sport as the mens.

Agreed; It would be more exciting as a contact game. You mention women’s ufc and yes its sometimes the most exciting fight of the night. Us men ufc fans are always pumped to see the women fight as its always action packed entertainment.
Its my guess there will be hitting in womens hockey as there is barely any hitting in nhl hockey anymore: until playoffs that is.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

I'm still curious as to why they do not allow checking.

Yeah, I never really understood this. It's women versus women, so why wouldn't checking be allowed? It's not like a combined league where you don't want 6'4, 230 lbs men taking runs at women.

 

[ACC1224]

As a Leaf fan I already watch 'no hit hockey'.

 

[Turin]

I don’t care to or have time to watch AHL, ECHL, CHL, NCAA, SHL, KHL, Liiga so I don’t see myself going out of my way to watch high school level hockey.

 

[Menzinger]

Yes, once in a while. Likely wouldnt follow it as closely as the nhl though.

I already watch ahl, college, highschool and juniors games, not like id ignore new opportunities to watch the sport. Im a hockey fan before being an nhl fan

 

[Trap Jesus]

I voted no, but I guess it depends what occasionally means. I may like flip through it if it's on, but I seriously doubt I'd watch a full game.

 

[Devil Dancer]

I'd watch a few games a year if there was a team in my city and I got those games through NHL.tv or some other service I already have.

 

[DickSmehlik]

If they wore bikinis and their fights involved mud, then "yes". Amirite guys?

 

[Ainec]

probably not

 

[WingsMJN2965]

 

[3074326]

I can't see myself being a die-hard fan of this league, but if it's exciting, I'd check it out.

No, and it's not sexist just facts.

They are not as strong, fast or skilled as men. I don't care if snowflakes are offended by objective truths, but males are far superior athletes and significantly stronger. And this is true across almost all species.

That is the single reason why male athletes get paid more and why their games are televised. It draws a much larger crowd and is just a better product.

That being said it's still very important to show our girls they can play/compete and i'm all for a womens league, just don't expect the same type of talent/money to go with it. Once again, not sexist just a harsh truth.

Ah I love when people call others snowflakes and expect them to listen.

Also, in a women's league, the size/strength differences you've felt the need to point out shouldn't make much of a difference. They aren't playing men. But I hope you feel better about yourself.

Speed, sure, that would impact the game. Are they slower? I really don't know.

 

[Caps8112]

In a perfect world not revolving around making money we would have a successful womens league. The problem is hockey is already a fringe sport with many die hard fans and a lot more fringe fans that watch when their team is relevant. With a womens league your taking an already fringe sport and narrowing it down even further to friends and family of the players involved, men with daughters that will have a female athlete to follow and really really fringe fans who may or may not watch when their team is relevant.

 

[spiny norman]

Lopsided result.