What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2017 Women's World Championships

Re: 2017 Women's World Championships

Maybe the D3 players don't want to get stomped by canada? Although I find the social media ridicule about D3 players being asked laughable. High end D3 kids are better than or the same as bench level D1 kids in many cases.

I still dont know they have the leverage they need. Say the US men skip. So what? Does that make sportscenter? The over whwlming majority of sports fans in this country dont know the mens worlds exist, never mind womens worlds.

The support of the mens PAs is great to a point. They bargain for percentages and shares of huge revenue pools. Wheres that pool for womens hockey?

As much as usa hockey may have overplayed its hand, i fear social medias been an echo chamber on it too. Most of the sports/non hockey boards I read dont have threads on it. It may not be as "big" as it appears.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2017 Women's World Championships

BoSox3066 said:
Maybe the D3 players don't want to get stomped by canada? Although I find the social media ridicule about D3 players being asked laughable. High end D3 kids are better than or the same as bench level D1 kids in many cases.

I still dont know they have the leverage they need. Say the US men skip. So what? Does that make sportscenter? The over whwlming majority of sports fans in this country dont know the mens worlds exist, never mind womens worlds.

The support of the mens PAs is great to a point. They bargain for percentages and shares of huge revenue pools. Wheres that pool for womens hockey?

As much as usa hockey may have overplayed its hand, i fear social medias been an echo chamber on it too. Most of the sports/non hockey boards I read dont have threads on it. It may not be as "big" as it appears.
Click to expand...
What I fear is that if this thing doesn't get settled, the end result could be a huge setback for women's hockey in the U.S.
If, for whatever reason, USA hockey refuses to compromise by offering an acceptable proposal to the national team players, and should the standstill/lack of an agreement continue into the next year, is it possible that the USA would not be represented in next year's Olympics? The one event all the current national team players have been in training for (while mostly supporting themselves) the past three plus years? The way things seem to be headed now, all of the players on the USA National Team roster would not play, nor would most (or all?) of the alternates that USA Hockey has reportedly contacted and asked to play, in the upcoming Worlds tournament. But how likely would this non-participation from the world stage carry over to next year's Olympics, the one women's hockey event that hockey fans generally might pay attention to?
 
Re: 2017 Women's World Championships

Apparently Adrian College seniors and alumni played Switzerland in an exhibition game yesterday and lost 10-1. No report on which AC players particpated.
This has been on the Swiss team schedule for some time - so it does not appear to be something involving replacement players.
 
BoSox3066 said:
I still dont know they have the leverage they need. Say the US men skip. So what? Does that make sportscenter? The over whwlming majority of sports fans in this country dont know the mens worlds exist, never mind womens worlds.
Click to expand...

It's huge, and it has nothing to do with public opinion.

You don't compete in the World's, guess what happens? You get RELEGATED! Can you imagine Team USA getting relegated? All kinds if ramifications to that.

The World's also sets the Olympic field, with a caveat. If the NHL competes in the Olympics, they demand certain countries are in the tournament regardless of their relegation status. But if not, it's possible the Men USA team doesn't qualify for the Olympics (though, I think it's too late to have an effect for the upcoming Olympics).

Then, there is the whole boycott thing. After the 1980 and 1984 Olympic boycotts, the IOC put down stringent rules punishing countries for boycotting the Olympics.

I wonder what the IIHF has for such a thing? Would they ban the USA from other tournaments as punishment? Even the WJC which is in Buffalo next year?

Like I said earlier, this is getting very interesting. And so far, USA Hockey continues to not only lose face, but lose any positioning they have on this matter.
 
Russell Jaslow said:
Then, there is the whole boycott thing. After the 1980 and 1984 Olympic boycotts, the IOC put down stringent rules punishing countries for boycotting the Olympics.

I wonder what the IIHF has for such a thing? Would they ban the USA from other tournaments as punishment? Even the WJC which is in Buffalo next year?
Click to expand...

Here are some excerpts from the IIHF Statutes and Bylaws. Some of it is typical open ended language.

28. Suspension of a Member National Association

Council may temporarily suspend a Member National Association after written notice if its members, clubs, teams, officials, etc.:
 have been deemed to have brought the sport into disrepute;
 have repeatedly failed in their responsibilities towards the IIHF; or
 have acted seriously contrary to the Statutes, Bylaws, Regulations or decisions of the IIHF.

The Member National Association and/or said bodies or persons will be informed about such suspension. Suspensions of Member National Associations will be submitted for ratification by the next Congress. However, if such decision is not ratified, the Member National Association shall not have any right of action against the IIHF.

A suspended Member National Association will have no vote at Congress and all teams and players registered with this Member National Association will not be allowed to participate in any international competitions and games during the period of the suspension.
 
Re: 2017 Women's World Championships

29. Expulsion of a Member National Association

Congress may revoke a Member National Association’s membership after written notice if it:
 ceases to fulfil the conditions for the respective membership class;
 seriously violates the Statutes, Bylaws, Regulations/Codes or decisions of the IIHF;
 brings ice hockey or inline hockey, where inline hockey is active under the Member National Association, into disrepute internationally or in its own country;
 does not pay the annual subscriptions or meet other financial obligations owed to the IIHF;
 ceases to be an association of a sovereign state; or
 fails to participate in any IIHF activities for four consecutive years.

Expulsions issued by Council will be submitted for ratification by the next Congress.
 
Re: 2017 Women's World Championships

And some more exacting rules concerning withdrawing from a World Championship:

608. Withdrawal from IIHF Ice Hockey World Championships

1. Participation of Teams:
A Member National Association that does not intend to fulfil its commitment and indicates such by 1 September of the respective championship season or preceding year will automatically be fined by the IIHF as follows, except in the case of force majeure:
 IIHF Ice Hockey World Championship CHF 50,000
 IIHF Ice Hockey World Championship Division I CHF 15,000
 IIHF Ice Hockey World Championship Division II and III CHF 7,500
 IIHF Ice Hockey Junior and Women Championships CHF 7,500
 Qualifying Events CHF 5,000

This fine shall double if notification is received at any time thereafter.
 
Russell Jaslow said:
And some more exacting rules concerning withdrawing from a World Championship:

608. Withdrawal from IIHF Ice Hockey World Championships

1. Participation of Teams:
A Member National Association that does not intend to fulfil its commitment and indicates such by 1 September of the respective championship season or preceding year will automatically be fined by the IIHF as follows, except in the case of force majeure:
 IIHF Ice Hockey World Championship CHF 50,000
 IIHF Ice Hockey World Championship Division I CHF 15,000
 IIHF Ice Hockey World Championship Division II and III CHF 7,500
 IIHF Ice Hockey Junior and Women Championships CHF 7,500
 Qualifying Events CHF 5,000

This fine shall double if notification is received at any time thereafter.
Click to expand...

CHF is Swiss Franc. The current exchange rate is almost exactly one for one to the U.S. dollar. So, the fine isn't all that much.

But, it doesn't mean the IIHF can't charge the "disrepute to the sport" clause on the USA.

And, at the very least, you will get relegated.
 
Re: 2017 Women's World Championships

For those who think the money isn't there, this from USA Today not only proves them horribly wrong, but is an embarrassment to USA Hockey:

What the terms of their new deal will be are still unknown, but they’ll undoubtedly be better than the stunningly awful equivalent of $1,500 per year each player now receives from USA Hockey. You read that right: $1,500 a year.

This is an organization that brought in revenue of $41.9 million in 2014, according to its tax return. You read that right too.

It’s natural to wonder how this compares with what other national governing bodies give their athletes. Here’s the answer in a nutshell: Not well.

U.S. Figure Skating, with revenue of $17.9 million in 2014, pays its elite athletes more than $50,000 a year, and that’s just the beginning. Skating shows, personal appearances and endorsement deals, often put together with the help of USFS, give top U.S. skaters income of well over $100,000 per year.

How about tiny U.S. Biathlon? Its 2014 revenue was $2.3 million, which makes it hard to give athletes much of anything. But here’s what President and CEO Max Cobb did:

As part of a sponsorship agreement with the financial services firm State Street from 2014-16, Cobb carved out $90,000 for the NGB’s top performers over those three years, $30,000 per year. The first year, he gave elite athletes Susan Dunklee and Lowell Bailey $15,000 each. The next two years, Dunklee and Bailey were joined by Tim Burke in receiving $10,000 per year.
 
Twolinepass said:
That's too bad, I don't understand why some of these players have said no. Former D-III players are not going to ever play on the national team. They are probably not going to play in the NWHL as that is a temporary parking spot for national team players. And besides, they probably could not afford to as they are up to their eyeballs in student loan debt(unlike the national team former D-I players). Your future hockey career is the Saturday night beer league. So why not take a shot? Probably because of fear of what the elite might say about you.
Click to expand...

Obvious you don't get it. It's not about getting a chance, it's about a level of respect and equality
 
Re: 2017 Women's World Championships

Russell Jaslow said:
For those who think the money isn't there, this from USA Today not only proves them horribly wrong, but is an embarrassment to USA Hockey:

What the terms of their new deal will be are still unknown, but they’ll undoubtedly be better than the stunningly awful equivalent of $1,500 per year each player now receives from USA Hockey. You read that right: $1,500 a year.

This is an organization that brought in revenue of $41.9 million in 2014, according to its tax return. You read that right too.

It’s natural to wonder how this compares with what other national governing bodies give their athletes. Here’s the answer in a nutshell: Not well.

U.S. Figure Skating, with revenue of $17.9 million in 2014, pays its elite athletes more than $50,000 a year, and that’s just the beginning. Skating shows, personal appearances and endorsement deals, often put together with the help of USFS, give top U.S. skaters income of well over $100,000 per year.

How about tiny U.S. Biathlon? Its 2014 revenue was $2.3 million, which makes it hard to give athletes much of anything. But here’s what President and CEO Max Cobb did:

As part of a sponsorship agreement with the financial services firm State Street from 2014-16, Cobb carved out $90,000 for the NGB’s top performers over those three years, $30,000 per year. The first year, he gave elite athletes Susan Dunklee and Lowell Bailey $15,000 each. The next two years, Dunklee and Bailey were joined by Tim Burke in receiving $10,000 per year.
Click to expand...

Thanks for those numbers Russell. Further proof that USA Hockey doesn't have a leg to stand on
 
Re: 2017 Women's World Championships

There is/was a meeting between the two sides today in Philadelphia. So far, nothing, which I guess is a good thing.

I think this is it one way or the other.
 
Re: 2017 Women's World Championships

Both sides thought they had reached agreement last Monday. USA Hockey's negotiators could not convince the executive board to vote yes.
Last Thursday the executive board, instead of approving the deal, voted to have negotiators go back with counteroffer. Which the players turned down.

So today some players are meeting with USA Hockey officials to try again to come to terms.

This from Johanette Howard of espnw and Ollie Sutton of HyPelee.
 
Re: 2017 Women's World Championships

Russell Jaslow said:
For those who think the money isn't there, this from USA Today not only proves them horribly wrong, but is an embarrassment to USA Hockey:

What the terms of their new deal will be are still unknown, but they’ll undoubtedly be better than the stunningly awful equivalent of $1,500 per year each player now receives from USA Hockey. You read that right: $1,500 a year.

This is an organization that brought in revenue of $41.9 million in 2014, according to its tax return. You read that right too.

It’s natural to wonder how this compares with what other national governing bodies give their athletes. Here’s the answer in a nutshell: Not well.

U.S. Figure Skating, with revenue of $17.9 million in 2014, pays its elite athletes more than $50,000 a year, and that’s just the beginning. Skating shows, personal appearances and endorsement deals, often put together with the help of USFS, give top U.S. skaters income of well over $100,000 per year.

How about tiny U.S. Biathlon? Its 2014 revenue was $2.3 million, which makes it hard to give athletes much of anything. But here’s what President and CEO Max Cobb did:

As part of a sponsorship agreement with the financial services firm State Street from 2014-16, Cobb carved out $90,000 for the NGB’s top performers over those three years, $30,000 per year. The first year, he gave elite athletes Susan Dunklee and Lowell Bailey $15,000 each. The next two years, Dunklee and Bailey were joined by Tim Burke in receiving $10,000 per year.
Click to expand...

I read that swimmers get $3000 a month, which is what they were at last Monday

problem is both sides, USA Hockey and the players are giving numbers to shed themselves in the best light to win support
what they real facts are we don't know

I see now that a bunch of Senators are weighing in on it, as usual, they don't seem to know what's going on either
this reminds me of when the Coach Whose Name Shan't Be Said got shidtcanned by UMD and a lot of people were blowing a cork without understanding the facts of the situation
 
pokechecker said:
problem is both sides, USA Hockey and the players are giving numbers to shed themselves in the best light to win support
what they real facts are we don't know
Click to expand...

This.

What their real demands are, we don't know either.

Its hard to compare with figure skating (their tours sell tickets) and swimming (they have prestige sponsors). Womens hockey needs to aecure one or the other if its going to be a a full time job.
 
Re: 2017 Women's World Championships

BoSox3066 said:
This.

What their real demands are, we don't know either.

Its hard to compare with figure skating (their tours sell tickets) and swimming (they have prestige sponsors). Womens hockey needs to aecure one or the other if its going to be a a full time job.
Click to expand...

the figure skating outfit claimed income of $17 million in 2014, USAH $49 million, thats not hard to understand, ticket sales or not. We know what USAH spends on girls development, $0 and boys $3.5million. we don't know what USAH spends on men because they will not release that but we know what they spend on the women and we know what team Canada spends on women.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top