US vs Canada - Women's Hockey

[Yote 53]

1 minute ago, scpa0305 said:

Why would you say that?

Because like everything Title 9, the way to balance things out is not to add a woman's program, it's to shut down a men's program.  See men's wrestling, gymnastics, swimming & diving, etc.  Heck, Title 9 is a major factor in limiting the growth of NCAA hockey.  Costs too much to add a corresponding women's program that is a financial black hole.  For that reason, men's opportunities get limited.

[fightingsioux4life]

20 hours ago, UND1983 said:

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.  

The Lamoureux twins have jobs. So do many of the other women's players who are no longer in college. Please show a little more respect for the women who have put USA women's hockey on the map. And I haven't heard anybody on the women's international team claim it is their "right" to play for their country. They are simply trying to make it easier for them to be able to play in international tournaments while still hanging onto their full-time jobs.

Simply put, if we don't have the best players, we won't have much success in international tournaments (especially against the Canadians). And if anyone on here thinks we can simply replace our best players and get the exact same results, they are simply deluding themselves.

There probably is room for compromise and negotiation here, but USA Hockey has basically refused to even have a conversation about it. That is why these women (who work harder than most of us on this forum) are doing this. They know they are sacrificing a chance to play for their country and they are willing to make that sacrifice. That doesn't sound like "entitlement" to me.

[Siouxphan27]

14 minutes ago, fightingsioux4life said:

The Lamoureux twins have jobs. So do many of the other women's players who are no longer in college. Please show a little more respect for the women who have put USA women's hockey on the map. And I haven't heard anybody on the women's international team claim it is their "right" to play for their country. They are simply trying to make it easier for them to be able to play in international tournaments while still hanging onto their full-time jobs.

Simply put, if we don't have the best players, we won't have much success in international tournaments (especially against the Canadians). And if anyone on here thinks we can simply replace our best players and get the exact same results, they are simply deluding themselves.

There probably is room for compromise and negotiation here, but USA Hockey has basically refused to even have a conversation about it. That is why these women (who work harder than most of us on this forum) are doing this. They know they are sacrificing a chance to play for their country and they are willing to make that sacrifice. That doesn't sound like "entitlement" to me.

I think the problem is the vast majority of people don't care if USA women's hockey is on the map or not.   So if the thrill of representing their country has worn off for some of the veterans, then maybe it's time to step down and give others a chance to play and represent. 

[UND1983]

23 minutes ago, fightingsioux4life said:

The Lamoureux twins have jobs. So do many of the other women's players who are no longer in college. Please show a little more respect for the women who have put USA women's hockey on the map. And I haven't heard anybody on the women's international team claim it is their "right" to play for their country. They are simply trying to make it easier for them to be able to play in international tournaments while still hanging onto their full-time jobs.

Simply put, if we don't have the best players, we won't have much success in international tournaments (especially against the Canadians). And if anyone on here thinks we can simply replace our best players and get the exact same results, they are simply deluding themselves.

There probably is room for compromise and negotiation here, but USA Hockey has basically refused to even have a conversation about it. That is why these women (who work harder than most of us on this forum) are doing this. They know they are sacrificing a chance to play for their country and they are willing to make that sacrifice. That doesn't sound like "entitlement" to me.

I should have stated "hockey jobs", like pro hockey athletes have.  

I still don't understand why they think they should be paid a year round wage by USA Hockey.   Does the curling team get paid year round, every year by their association?  Does anyone?  

[scpa0305]

4 hours ago, Yote 53 said:

Because like everything Title 9, the way to balance things out is not to add a woman's program, it's to shut down a men's program.  See men's wrestling, gymnastics, swimming & diving, etc.  Heck, Title 9 is a major factor in limiting the growth of NCAA hockey.  Costs too much to add a corresponding women's program that is a financial black hole.  For that reason, men's opportunities get limited.

Ok I thought you were comparing the women's program to the boys....which isn't even close.

[NoiseInsideMyHead]

More information from USA Hockey. http://www.usahockey.com/news_article/show/771106?referrer_id=752796

Quote

What are Players' Demands?

According to our calculations, the players’ demands would result in total player compensation in an Olympic year of approximately $210,000 per player if the team attains a silver medal and $237,000 for a gold medal. The total includes requested player compensation, per game payments, travel for a guest to every event and exhibition game, roster bonus, performance bonuses, training stipends, and benefits and payroll taxes that would be required under the proposal. This does not include the operational expenses of the team, including housing stipend, travel allowances, meal expenses, medical and disability insurance and the infrastructure that includes elite-level support staff to train and prepare the players, which in preparation for the 2014 Olympic Winter Games totaled more than $2 million. Further, the demands from the players also include a wide variety of other financial obligations to USA Hockey, such as business class airfare on flights of more than three hours, day care, nanny support and increased staffing that total more than $1.3 million.

Additionally, in a non-Olympic year, according to our calculations, the players’ demands would result in approximately $146,000 per player for a silver-medal performance and approximately $149,000 each for gold. The additional operational expenses of the team noted above are not included in those figures. Further, the demands from the players (business class airfare on flights of more than three hours, day care, nanny support and increased staffing, etc.) total more than $830,000.

In total, the player's demands, including compensation, benefits and other expenses of operating the program, exceed $8 million in an Olympic year and $5.7 in a non-Olympic year.

Demanding paid guest travel, paid nanny/child care, and business class airfare is going to turn a lot of people off.  Not helping the cause, IMHO.

[UND-1]

Finally a media member that has the balls to tell the other side of the story:

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/pattisonave/women-USA-Hockey-pay-dispute-Olympics-equal.html

Quote

 

The National Women’s Hockey League is a four-team league with a salary cap of $270,000 per team. Players get a share of the home gate after 500 tickets are sold.

Because they can’t make a living wage as full-time professional hockey players, the players want USA Hockey to supplement their income so they can live as full-time hockey players.

The U.S. Census Bureau estimates the median household income in the United States for 2016 was $53,889. Basically, the players want USA Hockey to pay them nearly $15,000 more than the median income, plus benefits, for a nine-day tournament once a year except for an Olympic year.

 

 

[WiSioux]

A few UND women's players have turned down USA Hockey's invitation to play on the team in place of the boycotting players. 

Must be a hard decision, but I think I support them. It may be a missed opportunity and who knows if it will impact future opportunities but they are standing up for what they believe.

[Siouxperfan7]

5 minutes ago, WiSioux said:

A few UND women's players have turned down USA Hockey's invitation to play on the team in place of the boycotting players. 

Must be a hard decision, but I think I support them. It may be a missed opportunity and who knows if it will impact future opportunities but they are standing up for what they believe.

When the league went on strike and the Sentinels needed a quarterback, did Shane Falco turn down the opportunity?  Hell no!!! And neither should these girls!! 

[WiSioux]

8 minutes ago, Siouxperfan7 said:

When the league went on strike and the Sentinels needed a quarterback, did Shane Falco turn down the opportunity?  Hell no!!! And neither should these girls!! 

Who?

[UND-1]

2 hours ago, WiSioux said:

Who?

Sigh.

[siouxforeverbaby]

2 hours ago, WiSioux said:

Who?

Main character in the move, The Replacements...played by Keanu Reeves

2 minutes ago, UND-1 said:

Sigh.

You realize that wasn't real life right?

[UND-1]

2 minutes ago, siouxforeverbaby said:

Main character in the move, The Replacements...played by Keanu Reeves

You realize that wasn't real life right?

To you.

[Maddogg1971]

You either want to play hockey for the love of the game or not.

[cberkas]

14 Senators sent a letter to the USA Hockey director Dave Ogrean. No Senator from North Dakota or Minnesota signed it. I think these Senators might want to go to USA Hockey to see if the women's team buys all their own equipment like their letter says. 

[UNDColorado]

On 3/24/2017 at 0:28 PM, UND-1 said:

Finally a media member that has the balls to tell the other side of the story:

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/pattisonave/women-USA-Hockey-pay-dispute-Olympics-equal.html

 

This is refreshing to see. All we hear from our local hockey writer is the other side of the argument. I hate to say it but these women are asking for more than they produce...in most businesses you would be laughed at or fired for asking for something like this.

[UND-1]

11 minutes ago, UNDColorado said:

This is refreshing to see. All we hear from our local hockey writer is the other side of the argument. I hate to say it but these women are asking for more than they produce...in most businesses you would be laughed at or fired for asking for something like this.

They don't produce hardly anything but that isn't the point.

The problem I have is they are masquerading as "women's rights crusaders" and "fighting for the future generations".  Yah, those things are on their list.  But the list starts with more money.  This is a money grab for the current players, first and foremost.  Then, as you move down the list it gets into training, equipment, support for youth teams, etc.  

The amount they are asking for is absurd.  68K to stay in shape and then go play in a two-week women's hockey tournament that 99.99% of the world doesn't know is happening, are you F'n kidding me?   Teachers make 40-60K and work their ass off for nine months.  

 

[UNDBIZ]

20 minutes ago, cberkas said:

14 Senators sent a letter to the USA Hockey director Dave Ogrean. No Senator from North Dakota or Minnesota signed it. I think these Senators might want to go to USA Hockey to see if the women's team buys all their own equipment like their letter says. 

Holy 14?!? That's almost 30% of half the Senate!!  USA Hockey will have to back down now.

[UNDColorado]

6 minutes ago, UND-1 said:

They don't produce hardly anything but that isn't the point.

The problem I have is they are masquerading as "women's rights crusaders" and "fighting for the future generations".  Yah, those things are on their list.  But the list starts with more money.  This is a money grab for the current players, first and foremost.  Then, as you move down the list it gets into training, equipment, support for youth teams, etc.  

The amount they are asking for is absurd.  68K to stay in shape and then go play in a two-week women's hockey tournament that 99.99% of the world doesn't know is happening, are you F'n kidding me?   Teachers make 40-60K and work their ass off for nine months.  

 

Well said, I agree with you 100%. This is absurd.

[UNDMOORHEAD]

18 minutes ago, UNDColorado said:

This is refreshing to see. All we hear from our local hockey writer is the other side of the argument. I hate to say it but these women are asking for more than they produce...in most businesses you would be laughed at or fired for asking for something like this.

Most people get far less money then they produce.

[UNDColorado]

Just now, UNDMOORHEAD said:

Most people get far less money then they produce.

But most people actually produce a profit. I don't see it here.

[UNDMOORHEAD]

7 minutes ago, UNDColorado said:

But most people actually produce a profit. I don't see it here.

I agree with you. Just pointing out that people who produce far more get far less.

[AJS]

31 minutes ago, cberkas said:

14 Senators sent a letter to the USA Hockey director Dave Ogrean. No Senator from North Dakota or Minnesota signed it. I think these Senators might want to go to USA Hockey to see if the women's team buys all their own equipment like their letter says. 

What really bothers me about this, is I think most people that are rationale would think that what they are asking for is absurd. The Women on this team aren't dumb and they knew exactly what they are doing. Make this a Women's rights thing and you can ask for the moon. Guess what, you are going to get your way in this climate. Why? Because of what you're seeing with the support from Senators and I can bet every other person that has a little spot light (Hakstol, Buccigross). The absurdity of what they are asking for doesn't matter, do you want to come off as anti-women? It's not like you have to pay out of your own pocket, so you can come off as a hero, pat yourself on the back and move on.

Their only mistake was not to ask for more. This is going to be a slippery slope, because why shouldn't every Olympian get paid? Or is it only, because their male counterparts make millions of dollars?

[tjl_48]

That was a terrible letter. I hate how is says the boys NTDP gets 3.5 millions spent on it but doesn't mention that money comes directly from the NHL to fund that team. Would have thought they would have done a little more fact checking before putting that out. 

[UNDBIZ]

1 hour ago, tjl_48 said:

That was a terrible letter. I hate how is says the boys NTDP gets 3.5 millions spent on it but doesn't mention that money comes directly from the NHL to fund that team. Would have thought they would have done a little more fact checking before putting that out. 

They don't want facts. They want a social media sh*t-storm.  The more misleading the better.  It's all intentional, just as we saw recently with the "episode" south of Mandan.