PDA

View Full Version : Pro Hockey has a problem (as if you didn’t know)



pokechecker
11-14-2019, 08:44 AM
Question: Who is(are) the most famous US player(s)?
Hints:
Who appeared nakid in the lead-up to the 2018 Olympics? That narrows it down to about a half dozen.
Who created a brouhaha in the media by being involved in a “fight” with Canada leading up to the 2014 Olympics?
Who scored the goals that gave the US their first gold medal in 20 years?

Yeah, the Lamoureux’s.
So then explain this:
Scroll down and watch the video)
https://twitter.com/cjzero/status/1194031446823976961/video/1
People who seem to know everything, even the most arcane facts, were mystified, all three were stumped.
How could they not have known this, after all, the recent showdown between the USA & Canada, the biggest rivalry in sports (sic) was held before a sold-out crowd of 1500?

Scott_TG
11-14-2019, 01:54 PM
Not a great look but not surprising trivia nerds wouldn't know that one.

I don't think having the best players on the sideline trying to force the one existing league to go under in hopes of the NHL giving them a better deal helps with their recognition either. And the NWHL just announced a new investor so that effort isn't necessarily working either.

robertearle
11-14-2019, 01:58 PM
Question: Who is(are) the most famous US player(s)?
Hints:
Who appeared nakid in the lead-up to the 2018 Olympics? That narrows it down to about a half dozen.
Who created a brouhaha in the media by being involved in a “fight” with Canada leading up to the 2014 Olympics?
Who scored the goals that gave the US their first gold medal in 20 years?

Yeah, the Lamoureux’s.
So then explain this:
Scroll down and watch the video)
https://twitter.com/cjzero/status/1194031446823976961/video/1
People who seem to know everything, even the most arcane facts, were mystified, all three were stumped.
How could they not have known this, after all, the recent showdown between the USA & Canada, the biggest rivalry in sports (sic) was held before a sold-out crowd of 1500?

What were the other four questions/answers in the category, and did the contestants get them right?


Answering my own question:
$200 - Gabby Douglas (Gymnastics, answered correctly)
$400 - Lamoureux
$600 - Ali Krieger & Ashlyn Harris (soccer, not answered correctly)
$800 - Inbee Park & Sung Hyun Park (golf, answered correctly)
$1000 - Robin Roberts, in her college days (though her scholarship was for tennis) (Basketball, not answered correctly)

So, they only got two out of the five (and I would not have known 'golf', but that would have been my guess, so...)

MAHOCKEY FAN
11-14-2019, 02:28 PM
Not a great look but not surprising trivia nerds wouldn't know that one.

I don't think having the best players on the sideline trying to force the one existing league to go under in hopes of the NHL giving them a better deal helps with their recognition either. And the NWHL just announced a new investor so that effort isn't necessarily working either.

i agree on both accounts.....sad to not see the best players playing hoping that the ONLY existing league will go under. Also there have been a lot of new investors this year. although many are small it adds up-a shame because the players get 50%. Rumor that there were other investors lined up who backed out when the group walked. Cut off their nose to spite their face.

pokechecker
11-15-2019, 07:52 AM
So, they only got two out of the five

which to most people would prove that women athletes have a PR problem
even the proverbial man in a cave would know Douglas is a tumbler
and Park, as you said, golf, that would have been my guess
Lamoureux is French, the contestants weren't even willing to gamble on a $400 question that hockey was the answer, similar to Park -> Korean -> golf?
were they even aware that women play hockey?

who knows, maybe the Players league strategy may eventually work
but they were saying all along that there needed to be one league, so what happens when there is one league, they form another league
worse, it has an even worse business plan than the one that failed
although I have to admit by not playing, they received more PR than if they did

Still Eeyore
11-15-2019, 10:32 AM
I don't think having the best players on the sideline trying to force the one existing league to go under in hopes of the NHL giving them a better deal helps with their recognition either.

Those players have pretty clearly staked out a position that the NWHL, given what it is paying on net (and the net pay is important here, as the players are still paying some expenses themselves) does not really constitute a professional league.

JamesSimpson
11-15-2019, 11:40 AM
Thanks for the quizz. I am a big fan of this show:D.

Lindsay
11-15-2019, 12:41 PM
I know there’s been episodes where the contestants go 0 for 5 on football questions. Perhaps time to cancel the NFL. ;)

Pro women’s hockey is certainly a challenging endeavor. Imo, need a pro women’s league that will work in partnership with USA Hockey and Hockey Canada. It’s very clear the NHL and the federations and to a lesser extent the media work together on the men’s side. It’s disheartening that on the women’s side although there’s been leagues since 1999, none of them has ever gotten the benefit of having real backing from the federations. Backing can simply include being present at meetings and such and having an open dialogue of what the league is doing, where they exist and then promoting that. But women’s pro hockey hasn’t even been able to get that support.

I think the PW group is in the right path of seeking corporate support and at some point when a leader emerges the Federations ought to act like partners with them. They certainly didn’t do that for Andress or Rylan. How long does this have to go on for? Particularly given the relative name recognition of Poulin and Knight, who are still at the top of their games on the ice, I hope a viable league emerges while those two can promote it, and effectively transition the game to the next generation of stars.

Rylan’s accomplishments are significant. But not having the support of the federations, and being boycotted by the 200 best players is a problem, that will need to be resolved if reconciliation occurs. The CW said they think an operating budget of $10 million is what’s needed for a viable league. I’m curious how close Rylan is to that. Ive noticed that the group “TeamSheIs” which was founded by Andress, is showing more and more support for the NW. And that’s fine, but man is frustrating that people pick and choose when they want to work together, and we can’t get on the same page.

Lindsay
11-15-2019, 12:57 PM
Not a great look but not surprising trivia nerds wouldn't know that one.

I don't think having the best players on the sideline trying to force the one existing league to go under in hopes of the NHL giving them a better deal helps with their recognition either. And the NWHL just announced a new investor so that effort isn't necessarily working either.

Yes it feels very icky. The idea of two leagues competing and seeing what happens is one thing. The idea that one league should cancel itself preemptively because the powers that be said so, is off putting. At the same time, if Rylan is not a leader that can build the industry relationships needed to thrive, I can’t blame the players for leaving that league. But the question becomes, who is the person or people the industry will support, because they have a long history of coming up with reasons to leave the women out . I think the conversation around this movement ought to include that.

Not sure if you saw the most recent Athletic article on the topic, but it said that some PW members are reaching out to the NHL trying to get them to invest in a new league regardless, and drop this line about “only consider it if there’s no other league.”

pokechecker
11-19-2019, 10:40 AM
The idea that one league should cancel itself preemptively because the powers that be said so, is off putting. At the same time, if Rylan is not a leader that can build the industry relationships needed to thrive, I can’t blame the players for leaving that league.”
That is fake news. The CWHL failed because of lack of fan support and sponsor support. The NWHL has also failed on both. It’s not like Rylan is the only one to have failed as a leader,(if only temporarily, the league still exists) so did the leaders of the CWHL and all who preceeded it. I’m going to also throw in the leaders of the Playerz League, who did not leave the NWHL, the Canadians refused to join it and the Americans refused to return. If the NWHL were to fail now, it is on the boycotting players, after all that is their goal.


Not sure if you saw the most recent Athletic article on the topic, but it said that some PW members are reaching out to the NHL trying to get them to invest in a new league regardless, and drop this line about “only consider it if there’s no other league.”
That’s pretty much the Playerz League only hope for surviving, the men being sugar daddies for the women. While it was nice of the NHL/Penguins to give them a home for the recent US/Canada scrimmage (can it be called anything else?) it does not show much confidence in the ability to attract an audience. While it is nice to say they played before a sold out audience, wouldn’t it have been a great opportunity/experiment to hold it in a venue that can hold 10X that?



Pro women’s hockey is certainly a challenging endeavor. Imo, need a pro women’s league that will work in partnership with USA Hockey and Hockey Canada. It’s very clear the NHL and the federations and to a lesser extent the media work together on the men’s side.

USA Hockey & NHL is working with them, they are paying the US players. Hockey Canada paying the Canadians. The reason everyone is on the same page with the men … money, it has that affect on things. On the women’s side, there is negative money, who wants to be a part of that?
The women seem to think it is as simple as “build it and they will come”. It works that way only in Hollywood. It has taken the NHL a century to get to where they are, as recently as two generations ago the players made little more than a construction worker.




Rylan’s accomplishments are significant… being boycotted by the 200 best players is a problem, that will need to be resolved if reconciliation occurs. The CW said they think an operating budget of $10 million is what’s needed for a viable league.

You might be right about that, it is personal, do you think the players would end the boycott if Rylan stepped down?
Basically the players are asking the NHL to spend $10,000,000 per year for an undetermined number of years (since nobody knows how long it would take) until a women’s league is popular enough to take in revenue to offset expenses. The alternative is for the NHL to “invest” 1% of that per year in the NWHL and spend some more on supporting girls hockey, to truly “grow the game”(and the fan base).
Which do you suppose is the wiser choice if it were your money?

Lindsay
11-19-2019, 11:50 AM
Which do you suppose is the wiser choice if it were your money?

If I ran a league with 4.8 billion in revenue annual, including $560 million in sponsorship revenue, I hope I would do what I could to get a pro women’s league off the ground and running. Especially given the challenges faced at the minor hockey level regarding enrollment, and the challenge of getting towns or private investors to build rinks and operate them. The NHL and the governing bodies should be selling the sport every way they can, and although they support the women, their support is not where it could be.

The same is true of corporate investors.


I have more thoughts but another day... I do appreciate the hockey commentary though.

Rightnut
11-19-2019, 12:26 PM
Lindsay and Pokechecker both make good points and I don't think there is a ton of disagreement. Women's pro hockey is not self supporting or even close at the moment so it needs a "sugar daddy" i.e. the NHL for the foreseeable future. Just saying that gender equity requires that women be paid a living wage is a non-starter. Hockey is not socialism and who is going to be required to pay that wage? So it has to be in the NHL's interest to subsidize women's hockey. (which I think it should be). One thing I haven't understood, is why the women's games can't be paired up with NHL games - i.e run the women's games before the men's games? Maybe for the price of the NHL ticket you get free admission to the women's game or something along those lines? Definitely there would be logistical issues but it would provide further revenue for the NHL team in concessions and all the infrastructure would already be there. Get the casual fan to see the women's game. Just a thought.

pokechecker
11-19-2019, 01:08 PM
Your suggestion still does not solve the basic problem of how to generate revenue to pay the women. The only people working with additional revenue would be the people working in concessions. Everybody else would be working longer hours with no additional revenue. You’d have to sell a lot of hot dogs, peanuts, and beer to make up for that. Does that sound appealing if it were your business?

Take a look at a double header in baseball, does it make 2x the revenue of a single game?

A couple years ago the U of Minnesota had a double header in which fans had an opportunity to see the women’s game. ~14,000 showed up in time to see at least part of it. There is no evidence any of them started attending games because of it. In fact, if anything, attendance dropped slightly the following two years despite the fact they won the NCAA championship both years.

It’s not like the NHL isn’t doing anything. What do you suppose having the women participate in the skills competition was all about? What was providing a venue for the recent US/Canada series all about? How about subsidizing girls hockey in the NY/NJ area all about? You can foot the bill for a lot of young girls to play hockey for what one Olympic player expects to be paid. And in the long run, it has a much higher chance of “growing the game” than paying someone to play the game in front of nobody and hoping that someday people will suddenly decide to pay to see it.

Rightnut
11-19-2019, 01:45 PM
Your suggestion still does not solve the basic problem of how to generate revenue to pay the women. The only people working with additional revenue would be the people working in concessions. Everybody else would be working longer hours with no additional revenue. You’d have to sell a lot of hot dogs, peanuts, and beer to make up for that. Does that sound appealing if it were your business?

Take a look at a double header in baseball, does it make 2x the revenue of a single game?

A couple years ago the U of Minnesota had a double header in which fans had an opportunity to see the women’s game. ~14,000 showed up in time to see at least part of it. There is no evidence any of them started attending games because of it. In fact, if anything, attendance dropped slightly the following two years despite the fact they won the NCAA championship both years.

It’s not like the NHL isn’t doing anything. What do you suppose having the women participate in the skills competition was all about? What was providing a venue for the recent US/Canada series all about? How about subsidizing girls hockey in the NY/NJ area all about? You can foot the bill for a lot of young girls to play hockey for what one Olympic player expects to be paid. And in the long run, it has a much higher chance of “growing the game” than paying someone to play the game in front of nobody and hoping that someday people will suddenly decide to pay to see it.

I agree. I wasn't offering a solution to the fundamental problem of generating revenue. I don't have an answer unfortunately. Just a thought about getting a few more eyeballs on the professional women's game and possibly lessening the amount of a potential NHL subsidy. I am not addressing the support of girl's youth hockey. I think that is a somewhat different issue and in my opinion, not a huge issue. It's growing reasonably well.

pokechecker
11-21-2019, 08:08 AM
Beyond the fact that playing before an NHL game would increase cost without increasing revenue, there is the matter of the legal issues. The NHL would be on the hook for injuries. Even bigger, if 15,000 people show up, did they show up to watch the men or women? If the men are paid millions and the women nothing, that’s a lawsuit waiting to happen. The NHL will likely wait to see how the lawsuits in US soccer and NBA basketball shake out before taking control of women’s pro hockey.

Maybe what the women need to do is similar to what the arts community did here in MN. When they wanted to dedicate some funds from gambling to clean water, the Lefties pulled a quid pro quo, we won’t vote for the bill unless you include funding for art nobody wants. Their argument was “arts enhance living” or some similar BS.
The government pays a lot of people to do nothing, paying people to do something would be an improvement. A state controlled sports league. Then the women could make what they feel entitled to whether a thousand or ten thousand people show up to watch.

Leather helmet
11-21-2019, 10:15 AM
When they wanted to dedicate some funds from gambling to clean water, the Lefties pulled a quid pro quo, we won’t vote for the bill unless you include funding for art nobody wants. Their argument was “arts enhance living” or some similar BS.

Hey wait a minute, I was in favor of that bill. Does that make me a...Lefty? Well, pokechecker, you know that no hockey team can succeed with all lefties or all righties, so you play on my line any time.