US vs Canada - Women's Hockey

[UND1983]

1 hour ago, AlphaMikeFoxtrot said:

The only time many people (including myself) watch women's hockey that doesn't involve a friend or family member is the Olympics.  That's a good talking point for them to argue for better pay.  1k a month is pretty paltry. Doubling it won't break the bank. 25k x 12 months is an extra 300k a year.  It'll be more expensive if they wind up being represented by something similar to (or by) the NHLPA.

Pay them 2K a month for four years to train for a two week event- really?   lmfao.

The US Olympic/USA Hockey program would go broke if they had to become every athletes main source of income.  Plus, who says these players are going to actually make the team after they paid them all that money?

Laughable. 

[UND1983]

USA Hockey just backed up what I have been saying all along:

"USA Hockey's role is not to employ athletes and we will not do so".  

Amen.

[UNDBIZ]

They don't like it?  Just replace them with college players who are willing to play.  Easy.

[scpa0305]

1 hour ago, InHeavenThereIsNoBeer said:

Not sure how US Women's Hockey wanting more money lends itself to a left vs right political discussion.

I mean if you wanna stretch it sure, but you can take any subject and warp it into relating to politics indirectly.

True.  It came in response to schloss' public stance on many subjects.  I actually don't think I was being overly political now that I look back at my posts.  I was just laughing at schloss' one sided stance on some topics. I could care less about each topic.

[AlphaMikeFoxtrot]

43 minutes ago, UND1983 said:

Pay them 2K a month for four years to train for a two week event- really?   lmfao.

The US Olympic program would go broke if they had to become every athletes main source of income.  Plus, who says these players are going to actually make the team after they paid them all that money?

Laughable. 

Agreeing to pay this would be less costly than allowing them to unionize, or worse, turn it into a "nevertheless she persisted"/#deleteuber type incident, which would harm the sport.  The last thing we want is feminists paying attention to this issue.

[UND1983]

17 minutes ago, AlphaMikeFoxtrot said:

Agreeing to pay this would be less costly than allowing them to unionize, or worse, turn it into a "nevertheless she persisted"/#deleteuber type incident, which would harm the sport.  The last thing we want is feminists paying attention to this issue.

Unionize to play in the Olympics?  It's a privilege.  

The problem those ladies are going to have is they are making it about their income, while also throwing on "support"  and terms like that.  No, it's about you making more money because you don't have jobs but want to act like pro athletes.  Women's pro hockey was DOA.  

Essentially, USA Hockey told them to go fly a kite.  

[AJS]

52 minutes ago, scpa0305 said:

True.  It came in response to schloss' public stance on many subjects.  I actually don't think I was being overly political now that I look back at my posts.  I was just laughing at schloss' one sided stance on some topics. I could care less about each topic.

This has also really rubbed me the wrong way for the past couple years. He's not so much a reporter on a lot of issues, but more an advocate for only one side. It gets really, really annoying.

[cberkas]

How about Brad gets on the phone with USA Hockey and ask how much they pay the men's team. I wouldn't be surprised if the men don't get paid anything unless they are at the World Championships or the Olympics. 

[scpa0305]

6 minutes ago, AJS said:

This has also really rubbed me the wrong way for the past couple years. He's not so much a reporter on a lot of issues, but more an advocate for only one side. It gets really, really annoying.

He does a great job related to reporting college hockey...that's why I follow him.  In fairness to Schloss, 90% of what he puts out there is purely about the game. 

[UND1983]

How many girls play soccer and how many play hockey?   Horrible comparison.  

USA being dominant at a worldwide sport like Soccer is significant.  Hockey is not that, at all.

[AJS]

5 minutes ago, scpa0305 said:

He does a great job related to reporting college hockey...that's why I follow him.  In fairness to Schloss, 90% of what he puts out there is purely about the game. 

Agree completely, it's only tangents like this where he's a brutal follow. When he sticks to college hockey, he's great.

[Yote 53]

1 minute ago, keikla said:

Yes, they want more money, but there's more to it than that.  They want more than 9 games a year in non-olympic years.  I don't consider that to be that much of a request.  They want more advertising and advocation.  The women's team will never earn as much revenue as men do, but it's hard to expect them to earn anything when there is absolutely no exposure for the general public.  Part of the reason the women's soccer team makes so much is because the public actually knows they exist.

They're also advocating for more money to be put into developing girl youth hockey programs, something that USA Hockey has done little about despite being legally required to do so.  The Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act states that a sports governing body has to 'encourage and provide assistance to amateur athletic activities for women'.  That's incredibly vague and unhelpful, but the same regulation requires that USA Hockey submit to the President and congress (every 4 years) a report that details "data concerning the participation of women, disabled individuals, and racial and ethnic minorities in the amateur athletic activities and administration of the corporation and national governing bodies; and a description of the steps taken to encourage the participation of women, disabled individuals, and racial minorities in amateur athletic activities."

If USA Hockey is doing all that they're supposed to be doing in regards to women's and girl's hockey development and payment, why not just release that report (which should include quantitative data) to back it up?

Easy to read Amateur Act from Cornell Law School website

Article from Julie Foudy (US women's soccer star) about the history of this struggle with USA Hockey

For the record, I don't think the women's team should be paid a ton of money (most olympic athletes make crap), but I certainly think they deserve a bit more than what they're getting.  And if it takes boycotting to get it, then that's how it goes.  They've been remarkably successful...it's time that got acknowledged.

Has anybody here read an issue of USA Hockey magazine recently?  Or received emails and other information coming out of USA Hockey?  I find it hard to believe USA Hockey can be accused of not promoting girls hockey/women's hockey/or disabled hockey.  They have been pushing these programs hard for several years.

[NoiseInsideMyHead]

27 minutes ago, keikla said:

Yes, they want more money, but there's more to it than that.  They want more than 9 games a year in non-olympic years.  I don't consider that to be that much of a request.  They want more advertising and advocation.  The women's team will never earn as much revenue as men do, but it's hard to expect them to earn anything when there is absolutely no exposure for the general public.  Part of the reason the women's soccer team makes so much is because the public actually knows they exist.

They're also advocating for more money to be put into developing girl youth hockey programs, something that USA Hockey has done little about despite being legally required to do so.  The Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act states that a sports governing body has to 'encourage and provide assistance to amateur athletic activities for women'.  That's incredibly vague and unhelpful, but the same regulation requires that USA Hockey submit to the President and congress (every 4 years) a report that details "data concerning the participation of women, disabled individuals, and racial and ethnic minorities in the amateur athletic activities and administration of the corporation and national governing bodies; and a description of the steps taken to encourage the participation of women, disabled individuals, and racial minorities in amateur athletic activities."

If USA Hockey is doing all that they're supposed to be doing in regards to women's and girl's hockey development and payment, why not just release that report (which should include quantitative data) to back it up?

Easy to read Amateur Act from Cornell Law School website

Article from Julie Foudy (US women's soccer star) about the history of this struggle with USA Hockey

For the record, I don't think the women's team should be paid a ton of money (most olympic athletes make crap), but I certainly think they deserve a bit more than what they're getting.  And if it takes boycotting to get it, then that's how it goes.  They've been remarkably successful...it's time that got acknowledged.

Thanks for the detailed information and the refresher on the Amateur Sports Act.  The law is noble in intent but is hardly the vehicle to address pay demands or justify boycotts.  The opportunities to compete are clearly there, which is why the WH team appears to be resorting to guerrilla tactics instead of legal arbitration.

The comment in the linked article about 'selling out NHL arenas' is interesting.  Most promoters and venues notoriously love to make money...I'm sure if there was a market, the games would be booked.  Even in hockey-crazy Grand Forks, the USA women's team the last go around didn't come close to filling the Ralph.  But I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume there is data to back their claim.

[Siouxphan27]

I think USA Hockey should hire Idalski to a full time gig promoting women's hockey. 

[GDPritch]

9 hours ago, fightingsioux4life said:

Fine. But if the women decide to "deal with it" by walking and not playing, will you be on here b!tching about the United States performing poorly in international competition?

I'm guessing no?

[NoiseInsideMyHead]

I know the notion of amateurism and the Olympics is laughable, but consider the following.  Under the traditional model, I suspect the Olympics used to feature younger athletes. Namely, high school and college-aged kids who had relatively little financial need (i.e., they were full time students, living at home or on scholarship) and often abundant support (i.e., they were their parents' dependents).  I'm going to paint with a broad brush and say that certain sports are tilted towards upper ends of the socio-economic spectrum; poor inner-city kids are not playing high-level hockey.  (The economics of youth sports are a different issue, entirely, and I'm leaving that alone here.)  Older Olympians, on the other hand, necessarily found ways to make ends meet when they weren't competing, and trained locally.

Several of the WH players are entering their second or THIRD Olympic cycle.  These are not kids, they are adults.  Yet, they are looking to USA Hockey for what amounts to extraordinary financial support.  Maybe it's not the economic model that is the problem here, but rather the fact that the athletes have aged out and their personal situations have materially changed.  If you are 26, 27, 28 years old with a college education and haven't figured out a way to support yourself, then perhaps training and sports that do not put food on the table should take a back seat to being a grown up.

Being an Olympian and representing your country is a privilege, not a right.  All achievement is borne out of personal sacrifice.  Some sacrifices are greater than others, and let's face it -- life isn't fair.  There will always be somebody who has it better, or whom you perceive to have it better.  Most Olympic sports don't offer professional opportunities, period, and nobody is buying tickets to watch.

For all of the flaws inherent in USA athletics, I believe the actions of the WH team today are a black eye and an insult to the thousands of men and women who have trained and persevered and competed honorably and made tremendous sacrifices in pursuit of an Olympic dream that few will ever realize.  The pride of wearing the colors and marching into that stadium behind the flag and the gratitude of a nation are all the compensation they will ever receive.  

Maybe we should just refresh the roster and see what happens. USA! USA! USA!  As the saying goes, it's the name on the front of the sweater that counts, not the name on the back.

[cberkas]

I'm guessing the twins t-shirts didn't make enough money.

[Rebel_Sioux]

9 hours ago, AJS said:

I can't speak for everyone, but I'm sure I speak for majority. You know the question, would you rather have your local WNBA team win a championship or find $20? If they win it all or finish 10th, it doesn't matter to the vast majority of people.

As a Lynx fan I disagree.

[southpaw]

1 hour ago, Rebel_Sioux said:

As a Lynx fan I disagree.

One of the best signs I've seen:

[scpa0305]

9 hours ago, NoiseInsideMyHead said:

I know the notion of amateurism and the Olympics is laughable, but consider the following.  Under the traditional model, I suspect the Olympics used to feature younger athletes. Namely, high school and college-aged kids who had relatively little financial need (i.e., they were full time students, living at home or on scholarship) and often abundant support (i.e., they were their parents' dependents).  I'm going to paint with a broad brush and say that certain sports are tilted towards upper ends of the socio-economic spectrum; poor inner-city kids are not playing high-level hockey.  (The economics of youth sports are a different issue, entirely, and I'm leaving that alone here.)  Older Olympians, on the other hand, necessarily found ways to make ends meet when they weren't competing, and trained locally.

Several of the WH players are entering their second or THIRD Olympic cycle.  These are not kids, they are adults.  Yet, they are looking to USA Hockey for what amounts to extraordinary financial support.  Maybe it's not the economic model that is the problem here, but rather the fact that the athletes have aged out and their personal situations have materially changed.  If you are 26, 27, 28 years old with a college education and haven't figured out a way to support yourself, then perhaps training and sports that do not put food on the table should take a back seat to being a grown up.

Being an Olympian and representing your country is a privilege, not a right.  All achievement is borne out of personal sacrifice.  Some sacrifices are greater than others, and let's face it -- life isn't fair.  There will always be somebody who has it better, or whom you perceive to have it better.  Most Olympic sports don't offer professional opportunities, period, and nobody is buying tickets to watch.

For all of the flaws inherent in USA athletics, I believe the actions of the WH team today are a black eye and an insult to the thousands of men and women who have trained and persevered and competed honorably and made tremendous sacrifices in pursuit of an Olympic dream that few will ever realize.  The pride of wearing the colors and marching into that stadium behind the flag and the gratitude of a nation are all the compensation they will ever receive.  

Maybe we should just refresh the roster and see what happens. USA! USA! USA!  As the saying goes, it's the name on the front of the sweater that counts, not the name on the back.

Agreed...there are a ton of college women players that would gladly play.  And they would be good.  It may be hard since they'll obviously face a backlash from the current players.

[nodakvindy]

So I assume you all would say the usndtp should be shut down as well.

[AJS]

5 minutes ago, nodakvindy said:

So I assume you all would say the usndtp should be shut down as well.

Who pays for it? Does USA hockey? (Btw the answer is no).

If the NHL feels it should, then shut it down, since, you know, they are the ones that pay for it. 

[cberkas]

USA Hockey going to contact U18 and U22 players. 

[scpa0305]

20 minutes ago, nodakvindy said:

So I assume you all would say the usndtp should be shut down as well.

Why would you say that?

[Yote 53]

You could run a USNTDP for women's hockey, but who would they play?  Who would pay for it?  I suppose add another $5 to the USA Hockey registration fee.

It made me sick last night reading the ESPN Bottom Line with the ladies claiming that USA Hockey doesn't support women's hockey, etc.  It really makes USA Hockey look bad to the entire sporting public in this country who know nothing more than what they read in the headlines.  There is a push at all levels of USA Hockey for girls hockey because USAH rightly sees it as an untapped market with potential to grow the game.  At our most recent youth hockey association board meeting we discussed and are laying the groundwork to start up a girls program.  We need to have the interest first because, as of right now, we have 4 girls in our entire program.  That's not enough for a line much less a team.  Nevertheless, we are pushing forward with getting a program off the ground because that is the directive from the top, USAH, down through our affiliate, on down to the association level.  The women at the National Team level need to understand that these things take time. 

I hope they realize they've turned some people against them with this.  Personally, they've put me off and I'm a bit disgusted by their actions.