2012 Women's Worlds

[Blackbeard]

Re: 2012 Women's Worlds

Saw that in the box score last night, but thank you for the reminder, Blackbeard! I saw that Tessa Bonhomme had a couple assists, too! Love my Buckeyes!

In case you haven't already seen it there is a brief video interview with Spooner on the TSN website...as well as Johnston, Irwin, Poulin & Hefford. If the link doesn't automatically start the video(s) they are located on the right side of the page. Once you start one the rest just automatically play in sequence.

http://www.tsn.ca/womens_worlds/schedule/

[SlewFoot]

Re: 2012 Women's Worlds

Is there anything more antithetical to the Olympic movement then to tell athletes, "Do your best, but don't do too well, or else we'll punish your sport." That sounds more like something from the Hunger Games than the Olympic Games.

Hmmm.... no offense intended and this has nothing to do with hockey but this post caught my eye because I recently watched this movie. I have a hard time following your analogy because the Hunger Games was about winning or dying, which in my opinion is far from "do your best, but don't do too well..." I think the reluctant (though fictional) participants of the Hunger Games would have loved to have their "sport" eliminated.

[dave1381]

Re: 2012 Women's Worlds

Hmmm.... no offense intended and this has nothing to do with hockey but this post caught my eye because I recently watched this movie. I have a hard time following your analogy because the Hunger Games was about winning or dying, which in my opinion is far from "do your best, but don't do too well..." I think the reluctant (though fictional) participants of the Hunger Games would have loved to have their "sport" eliminated.

Mild spoiler warning in the next paragraph....

The analogy here comes because the Hunger Games wasn't just about winning or dying. Winning wasn't enough to live happily ever after. The winner was actually punished in various ways after the Games based on how she ended up winning in the Arena, because the way she won embarrassed the Capitol. Her friends and family also suffered because of the way she won.

Similarly, in the case of Olympic softball and women's hockey, you have journalists and IOC chairman telling female athletes (I mention female because this never happens to men), that it's not okay for the sport if they win a certain way. If they're too successful, then their sport will be punished. Then not only is your Olympic career potentially over, which was true for most of the 2008 U.S. softball team, but all the younger girls you've mentored and coached at camps with Olympic dreams don't get to compete at the Olympics either.

So yes, I think it's appropriate to say that threatening athletes to cut their sport for lack of parity is a philosophy more fitting of the Hunger Games than the Olympics. The Olympic motto is "swifter, faster, stronger" not "swifter, faster, stronger, but not so swift/fast/string OR ELSE." More people should find this to be totally unacceptable from the IOC. More people should be condemning the media who choose not to call out the IOC. Instead the media writes about how tragic it is that athletes could be victims of their own success, and that's just the way the world works. It only works that way if the IOC chooses not to give these women's sports the same chance to grow that a sport like men's hockey once received.

[brookyone]

Re: 2012 Women's Worlds

Mild spoiler warning in the next paragraph....

The analogy here comes because the Hunger Games wasn't just about winning or dying. Winning wasn't enough to live happily ever after. The winner was actually punished in various ways after the Games based on how she ended up winning in the Arena, because the way she won embarrassed the Capitol. Her friends and family also suffered because of the way she won.

Similarly, in the case of Olympic softball and women's hockey, you have journalists and IOC chairman telling female athletes (I mention female because this never happens to men), that it's not okay for the sport if they win a certain way. If they're too successful, then their sport will be punished. Then not only is your Olympic career potentially over, which was true for most of the 2008 U.S. softball team, but all the younger girls you've mentored and coached at camps with Olympic dreams don't get to compete at the Olympics either.

So yes, I think it's appropriate to say that threatening athletes to cut their sport for lack of parity is a philosophy more fitting of the Hunger Games than the Olympics. The Olympic motto is "swifter, faster, stronger" not "swifter, faster, stronger, but not so swift/fast/string OR ELSE." More people should find this to be totally unacceptable from the IOC. More people should be condemning the media who choose not to call out the IOC. Instead the media writes about how tragic it is that athletes could be victims of their own success, and that's just the way the world works. It only works that way if the IOC chooses not to give these women's sports the same chance to grow that a sport like men's hockey once received.

Enthusiastic thumbs up in agreement. Or...THIS!

[osualum86]

Re: 2012 Women's Worlds

In case you haven't already seen it there is a brief video interview with Spooner on the TSN website...as well as Johnston, Irwin, Poulin & Hefford. If the link doesn't automatically start the video(s) they are located on the right side of the page. Once you start one the rest just automatically play in sequence.

http://www.tsn.ca/womens_worlds/schedule/

Blackbeard, watched it, thank you for sharing that!

[SlewFoot]

Re: 2012 Women's Worlds

Mild spoiler warning in the next paragraph....

The analogy here comes because the Hunger Games wasn't just about winning or dying. Winning wasn't enough to live happily ever after. The winner was actually punished in various ways after the Games based on how she ended up winning in the Arena, because the way she won embarrassed the Capitol. Her friends and family also suffered because of the way she won.

Similarly, in the case of Olympic softball and women's hockey, you have journalists and IOC chairman telling female athletes (I mention female because this never happens to men), that it's not okay for the sport if they win a certain way. If they're too successful, then their sport will be punished. Then not only is your Olympic career potentially over, which was true for most of the 2008 U.S. softball team, but all the younger girls you've mentored and coached at camps with Olympic dreams don't get to compete at the Olympics either.

So yes, I think it's appropriate to say that threatening athletes to cut their sport for lack of parity is a philosophy more fitting of the Hunger Games than the Olympics. The Olympic motto is "swifter, faster, stronger" not "swifter, faster, stronger, but not so swift/fast/string OR ELSE." More people should find this to be totally unacceptable from the IOC. More people should be condemning the media who choose not to call out the IOC. Instead the media writes about how tragic it is that athletes could be victims of their own success, and that's just the way the world works. It only works that way if the IOC chooses not to give these women's sports the same chance to grow that a sport like men's hockey once received.

Interesting follow-up. I guess I still think the analogy is stretched a bit but I liked reading your answer. Maybe its because I didn't read the book and this comes later but I didn't see the athlete, family or friends punished (the boyfriend was hurt but I thought everyone except the very top echelon of the elites was happy with the outcome (if living is being punished I'd take it over the alternative). And by the way, I believe that men's baseball is eliminated from the Olympics starting in 2016 due to lack of competition and lack of world interest?

I personally think they will keep Women's hockey because frankly there aren't many team sports in the winter Olympics as it is.

[dave1381]

Re: 2012 Women's Worlds

Maybe its because I didn't read the book

Yes, the book made it much clearer than the movie how much she was threatened at the end. And then the second book begins with how she must continue to sell to the public that she acted out of love instead of rebellion in the Arena.

And by the way, I believe that men's baseball is eliminated from the Olympics starting in 2016 due to lack of competition and lack of world interest?

Baseball was axed the same time as softball. Baseball's elimination was some combination of bad press from steroids, anti-Americanism, political economy (Europe has more votes and doesn't play baseball), and economics (baseball & softball had required separate facilities of zero interest to European hosts after the games). Softball was lumped in with baseball as women's baseball more or less.

Lack of parity really had little to do with softball's ouster, though it was the primary explanation given by journalists because it made for a better story -- this whole victim of your own success drama. Plus lack of parity is why a lot of journalists wanted softball to be cut. The idea that a sport should be cut due to lack of parity comes more from journalists than the IOC. These are the mainstream journalists assigned to cover these sports and aren't clever enough to find any other story. When there were discussions to reinstate softball, then the IOC began to adopt something closer to the lousy journalists' position. Then you get guys like the SI article I linked below who admit lack of parity wasn't really a factor for softball's ouster, but then they say "it didn't help," and then write a whole article about how lack of parity is a huge problem for women's hockey.

Journalists were saying women's hockey should be cut "like softball" years before the IOC did. That didn't really happen until after the 2010 Games when IOC chair Jacques Rogge addressed the subject and threatened the sport. So yes, most journalists are not calling out the IOC because they invented the position that the IOC adopted.

I personally think they will keep Women's hockey because frankly there aren't many team sports in the winter Olympics as it is.

I agree. I am hopeful that Rogge was making empty threats. As I said, women's hockey suffers from none of the reasons that actually led to softball being cut -- only the fake reason.

[SlewFoot]

Re: 2012 Women's Worlds

Baseball was axed the same time as softball. Baseball's elimination was some combination of bad press from steroids, anti-Americanism, political economy (Europe has more votes and doesn't play baseball), and economics (baseball & softball had required separate facilities of zero interest to European hosts after the games). Softball was lumped in with baseball as women's baseball more or less.

Personally I find baseball a little boring but I think it was a mistake to eliminate the sport. It has some appeal outside of the US in Canada, Japan and many Latin American countries. At least Canada, Japan, Mexico, Cuba, and the Dominican Republic were competitive. You did say that men never get the short end of the stick but there were other men's sports that have been eliminated over the years. Some of the more notable ones were LaCrosse, Criquet, Tug-of-War and Polo. Also the co-ed sport of croquet was also an Olympic sport at one time.

[ManBehindTheCurtain]

Re: 2012 Women's Worlds

Men's hockey is a HUGE success at the Olympics. By success I mean that the TV rights holders are very pleased about having those games on TV (people watch, they can sell advertising). In addition people buy tickets. Money flows in.

Men's hockey is emphatically NOT going to be eliminated. It's just business, men's hockey is GOOD business.

Follow the money, business dictates that every winter Olympics venue will have a facility which will be used to house the money making men's hockey competition. Note that this CANNOT be the same facility used for the figure skating. Figure skating, particularly the ladies, is the primary cash cow of the Olympics. There aren't enough hours of ice time to complete both the figure skating calendar and men's hockey in the same facility. Figure skating is not going to give up hours in their (larger) facility for hockey games.

Therefore, there will be a men's hockey non-figure skating facility. ALWAYS.

Other events will be needed to fill the ice and to sell tickets to the men's hockey facility during all of the hours when the men are not playing. Many of those hours will be filled by the pseudo-sport of short track speed skating. There are still going to be lots of hours of ice time available.

If they didn't have women's hockey the rink would stand empty. Bad business model. Why not open the arena, put on some game or another, maybe, for example, women's hockey. Some tickets will be sold, some TV time will be filled.

Women's hockey is not anything at all like softball. The comparison is only valid on a sporting level. The Olympics is only secondarily about sport, the Olympics is BIG TIME about BUSINESS.

Women's hockey is very, very securely inside the business model for the modern Olympics. As long as men's hockey is a successful business entity for the Olympics, women's hockey is in ZERO danger of being dropped as an Olympic sport.

[ARM]

Re: 2012 Women's Worlds

Plus, hockey, like figure skating, can be packaged nicely for television. I love events like the downhill, but that can't be the easiest event to produce for TV, given they need to set cameras all over the hill for a one-day event that can be postponed if the weather doesn't cooperate. Cross country skiing, speed skating on the oval -- these events have to be edited quite a bit to provide any drama at all for those not regular followers. Maybe this is less important now that they've added all of the new X Games style events like snowboarding and freestyle skiing, but if curling can be a popular TV item (I think curling would qualify as a team sport, assuming it meets the definition of a sport), hockey should be in good shape with the TV folks.

[OnMAA]

Re: 2012 Women's Worlds

So yes, I think it's appropriate to say that threatening athletes to cut their sport for lack of parity is a philosophy more fitting of the Hunger Games than the Olympics. The Olympic motto is "swifter, faster, stronger" not "swifter, faster, stronger, but not so swift/fast/string OR ELSE." More people should find this to be totally unacceptable from the IOC. More people should be condemning the media who choose not to call out the IOC. Instead the media writes about how tragic it is that athletes could be victims of their own success, and that's just the way the world works. It only works that way if the IOC chooses not to give these women's sports the same chance to grow that a sport like men's hockey once received.

Me thinks the IOC is a Euro-Centric organization, and the fact that the two run-away front runners are both from NA is not helping matters a great deal. If it were the Swedes and the Russians running away at the top, you may not get that IOC presurred message. Food for thought.

[ManBehindTheCurtain]

Re: 2012 Women's Worlds

Me thinks the IOC is a Euro-Centric organization

I agree that this is true from the perspective of sport. But only from the perspective of sport.

The IOC is NOT primarily a sport organization, it is primarily a BUSINESS organization.

The whole X-games sports extravaganza, free style ski, snow board, all of that is clearly for North American TV. Euros love the traditional Nordic sports, I believe that the largest TV audience in Europe is for the men's 4x10 cross country relay. Any Euros tuned in to watch the free style snow board gold medal performance by Shawn White are bonus viewers.

The North American TV contracts pay the largest share towards total Olympic TV revenue. The North American TV audience (and the NBC TV contract) is the largest force driving the Olympics. The non-traditional sports (x-games and short track speed skating) have achieved Olympic sport status because North Americans (mostly USA) will tune in. It is all, totally, about whether you can get people to watch.

There is strong history indicating that North Americans will watch men's Olympic hockey. That means that there will have to be an arena for that event. If there is an arena for that event there will be a venue for women's hockey.

It's just business. Follow the money.

[SlewFoot]

Re: 2012 Women's Worlds

I agree that this is true from the perspective of sport. But only from the perspective of sport.

The IOC is NOT primarily a sport organization, it is primarily a BUSINESS organization.

The whole X-games sports extravaganza, free style ski, snow board, all of that is clearly for North American TV. Euros love the traditional Nordic sports, I believe that the largest TV audience in Europe is for the men's 4x10 cross country relay. Any Euros tuned in to watch the free style snow board gold medal performance by Shawn White are bonus viewers.

The North American TV contracts pay the largest share towards total Olympic TV revenue. The North American TV audience (and the NBC TV contract) is the largest force driving the Olympics. The non-traditional sports (x-games and short track speed skating) have achieved Olympic sport status because North Americans (mostly USA) will tune in. It is all, totally, about whether you can get people to watch.

There is strong history indicating that North Americans will watch men's Olympic hockey. That means that there will have to be an arena for that event. If there is an arena for that event there will be a venue for women's hockey.

It's just business. Follow the money.

I agree with everything you say. As long as the men's game is profitable to the IOC the women's game will probably ride the men's coattails. However, I hope that the women's game gets more competitive. Right now its pretty much a two team competition. The Worlds would be more competitive if the US and Canada had multiple teams. The rest of the world's teams have a long way to go. I just don't know how it will get better. European women playing in the States and Canada will help but I suspect women's hockey in Europe will always be second rate. As you say, "follow the money". The men have careers in the NHL to pursue but there isn't any money for the women to chase as an incentive.

[OnMAA]

Re: 2012 Women's Worlds

I agree with everything you say. As long as the men's game is profitable to the IOC the women's game will probably ride the men's coattails. However, I hope that the women's game gets more competitive. Right now its pretty much a two team competition. The Worlds would be more competitive if the US and Canada had multiple teams. The rest of the world's teams have a long way to go. I just don't know how it will get better. European women playing in the States and Canada will help but I suspect women's hockey in Europe will always be second rate.

I also agree with a most of the points that both you and ManbehindtheCurtain brought up. It is a multidimensional problem for sure. But I think you hit the nail on the head with your last sentence...

The men have careers in the NHL to pursue but there isn't any money for the women to chase as an incentive.

IMHO that is one of the key challenges to address to enable and/or sustain growth/survivability/longevity at the international level. If you cannot solve that problem, the elite pool of senior players will stay small.

It takes a lot of sacrifices for those beyond college age to keep playing at the elite level. Not sure how you can solve that problem. The NWHL/CHWL/WWHL concept has so far not lived up to its early promises, and not so sure if it ever will or can. Sad to say, but the reality is that Women’s hockey will remain an amateur sport, except for a chosen few who can get some sponsorship dollars out of it. The only others to stay in the game and make a career of it are the college coaches, and that is a limited pool to start off with. Like any Amateur sport, you are then left with those who stay at the high level, purely for the love of the game, and sacrificing both career opportunities or starting a family. It’s a tough choice to make. Too bad, as the “glory years” of a hockey player are typically from age 22-28.

[dave1381]

Re: 2012 Women's Worlds

I neglected to mention another reason baseball was cut -- it was a 2nd-rate competition that no one watched. Because of MLB obligations, so only Cuba & maybe a few Asian countries were able to field anything close to their best. If MLB had followed the NHL's, clearly things would be different for Olympic baseball & softball.

When neither baseball or softball are bringing in lots of N.A. TV viewers, then you're left with the only benefits of having the sport going to the non-Euro countries winning medals, and then the worst costs being borne by Euro hosts who need to build the stadiums. So that unique set of circumstances led to the sports being cut.

While MBTC is right that it's a business, part of being a business is building a brand image. If you had to imagine the worst-case scenario for women's hockey, it's that the IOC decides the lack of parity in women's hockey does so much damage to the Olympic brand -- and this idea gets propagated by the western journalists who are bored covering the sport -- that it decides the costs to diluting its brand are outweigh the benefits of filling empty rinks on men's hockey off days. So while I can buy that argument that Jacques Rogge is making empty threats, there is a threat from the bad press that women's hockey receives.

Now I believe that it's ridiculous for the IOC to drop women's hockey to improve its brand: an important part of the Olympic brand is that it's the highest form of competition for men and women. Pure competition and gender equity are important Olympic values. As I've said, if you cut women's hockey for lack of parity, you're punishing female athletes in a way that male athletes were never punished, and you're not providing a women's version of the highest-profile men's team sport in the Winter Olympics. I think the damage from dropping women's hockey to Olympic values is worse than any gain from dropping a sport with a lack of parity. I wish journalists would make that point. I hope the IOC would feel the same way, despite what Rogge has said.