Attendance & Women's Hockey

[Eeyore]

Re: Attendance & Women's Hockey

And although Eeyore may disagree, Goldy has to be there, because for most of the smaller children, he's the prime attraction.

I have no problem with Goldy being there or being a focus of marketing. I have objection to two things only:

1) I don't buy a ticket so that I can see his fat rodent butt. Goldy should not be standing up and engaging in his thing in the seats during a period. I come to watch hockey, and I want to see the game. If Goldy is in my way, or worse, teaching young girls that it is okay to spend the rest of their lives standing up and blocking my view, then he needs to go. During periods, he should be in the concourse. To parents, frankly, if your children don't want to watch a hockey game, don't bring them. Some of us take women's hockey seriously enough that we think that it should be appreciated. If you're getting in and out of your seats all game long, then you don't really appreciate women's hockey. The University of Minnesota should have special sections for those who don't want to watch the game. If they do that, have at it. Do whatever you want. I'll be too busy watching the game to notice.

And if you're a parent in my section and I yell at your daughter, don't bother telling me to remember what I was like as a child. According to my parents, by the time I was three I was already getting mad about people that blocked my view at Fenway Park.

What, you think I picked the handle "Eeyore" at random?

2) Goldy has a tendency to come down the stairs at a high rate of speed and then rely upon grabbing someone's shoulder to slow himself down and swing into a row. I absolutely, positively do not want this to be my shoulder. The time I went to arena personnel to complain about this was the second time he used my shoulder. I told him the first time. After that, failing to leave me alone is his problem.

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: Attendance & Women's Hockey

Good comments by all, including RIT Winters. And although I'm about to express some disagreement, I hope RIT W doesn't take offense -- either personally or an behalf of RIT. I actually have quite a warm place in my heart for RIT, gained at the Ford Field Men's FF. The RIT fanbase was THE hightlight of that tournament.

It really comes down to what you like about the game. There is no doubt that the men are bigger, stronger, and faster which leads to a much more exciting game to watch in my opinion. Throw in the added violence and energy from the full contact aspect, and I have a hard time enjoying women's hockey as much.

By this logic, the only hockey we should watch would be the Stanley Cup Playoffs and the Olympics/World Cup. Those players are bigger, stronger and faster than those at ALL lower levels. Youth hockey, either gender? College Hockey, either gender? The Amerks? All out of the question. In every case the players are smaller, weaker and slower than those at the very top of the pyramid.

Naturally my real opinion is that every level of hockey on that list is worth watching. The reasons may be different. The maximum potential crowd obviously differs from one level to the next. But the "too slow to enjoy" myth needs to be fought every time it comes up.

Everything about the women's game is basically a slowed down version of the men's game, with certain aspects (hitting, real slapshots) missing. I don't know that there is anything the women can do to solve this problem and get people in the stands who aren't predisposed (ex-players, family, ect) to it.

One thing that greatly deters those "who aren't predisposed" is that the myth is endlessly repeated -- even by good hockey people.

A little more on why it's a myth: In the run up to the last Olympics, The Team USA Women played the Boys High School Varsity from Roseau, MN. Roseau regularly produces a top-notch team. In the end, the Roseau Boys won a close, one goal game.

Why does this matter? It's one way to convey that Elite Women's Hockey is played at a very high level. I was seven year old kid growing up in Minnesota when I first discovered the Boys' High School Hockey Tournament. I thought it was the greatest sporting event I'd ever seen. I still think the tourney is one of America's great sporting events. A vast legion of fans agree; that tournament routinely fills the Xcel Energy Center, an NHL venue that takes a back seat to no one. To me, the fact a reasonable comparison can be made with MN Boys HS Hockey should end any debate about whether the Elite Women's game is watchable.

In fairness, Women's Olympic Hockey is a step up from D-1, but only one step. The best D-1 players go directly to the Olympic level. And that fact alone makes Women's D-1 interesting.

A casual sports fan is likely to prefer the pace and energy of the men's game, and the more experienced fan likely grew up on men's hockey and is going to be difficult to convert when there are men's teams around. Here in Rochester, we might have had the best D3 women's team but we also had a very good men's team on campus, and a resurgent Rochester Americans team downtown. On any given night/day of a women's game they are competing for the same audiences.

With regard to the scheduling conflicts, you make an excellent point. Although I've long since gotten used to it, I remain surprised at the number of conflicts that the hockey community tolerates. In Columbus, Buckeye Men and Women play multiple games head-to-head every season, forcing the fan to choose between the two squads. To take it a step further, there's usually one or more "triple conflict nights" when the NHL Blue Jackets are playing in the same timeslot! The hockey community just isn't big enough to be stretched that thin.

 

[RIT Winters]

Re: Attendance & Women's Hockey

Wall o'text incoming.

Good comments by all, including RIT Winters. And although I'm about to express some disagreement, I hope RIT W doesn't take offense -- either personally or an behalf of RIT. I actually have quite a warm place in my heart for RIT, gained at the Ford Field Men's FF. The RIT fanbase was THE hightlight of that tournament.
By this logic, the only hockey we should watch would be the Stanley Cup Playoffs and the Olympics/World Cup. Those players are bigger, stronger and faster than those at ALL lower levels. Youth hockey, either gender? College Hockey, either gender? The Amerks? All out of the question. In every case the players are smaller, weaker and slower than those at the very top of the pyramid.

I see what you are saying, but it's not exactly accurate. It's more about comparing them side by side. If my school has college hockey at it, I'm comparing the men's vs women's game. Now of course that wasn't totally fair at RIT given the D3 vs D1 split, but it's as close as possible, and next year will be technically equal.

There is no comparison to the Stanley Cup. I can't imagine any scenario in the hockey world where there was a hockey event I'd watch over the Stanley Cup Finals, and I think that is nigh-universally true of anyone. But there are a lot of other factors, too. I likely can't get/afford tickets to the Stanley Cup, at least not all 4-7 games. But for the price of a single NHL ticket I could get season tickets for the Tigers.

If you don't have any other options, you're going to be forced to watch youth, women's, beer league, whatever hockey is available if that is all you can get. But if there are multiple teams out there for people to choose from, they will choose the men's game for these reasons.

Naturally my real opinion is that every level of hockey on that list is worth watching. The reasons may be different. The maximum potential crowd obviously differs from one level to the next. But the "too slow to enjoy" myth needs to be fought every time it comes up.

One thing that greatly deters those "who aren't predisposed" is that the myth is endlessly repeated -- even by good hockey people.

A little more on why it's a myth: In the run up to the last Olympics, The Team USA Women played the Boys High School Varsity from Roseau, MN. Roseau regularly produces a top-notch team. In the end, the Roseau Boys won a close, one goal game.

Why does this matter? It's one way to convey that Elite Women's Hockey is played at a very high level. I was seven year old kid growing up in Minnesota when I first discovered the Boys' High School Hockey Tournament. I thought it was the greatest sporting event I'd ever seen. I still think the tourney is one of America's great sporting events. A vast legion of fans agree; that tournament routinely fills the Xcel Energy Center, an NHL venue that takes a back seat to no one. To me, the fact a reasonable comparison can be made with MN Boys HS Hockey should end any debate about whether the Elite Women's game is watchable.

Of course, any hockey is enjoyable and certainly desirable over no hockey. However..

I'm not sure that this is a very good example. You are saying that our international, Olympic women's hockey team was unable to defeat a team of high schoolers. This paints a pretty grim picture for their chances at beating even a D3 level hockey program, let alone a D1 level. If the absolute top-notch/professional women's team struggles against high school programs, than that really makes it a tough sell over going to, say, your local college men's team game and definitely does not put their play at a "very high" level, unless you consider high school hockey to be "high level" compared to college, semi-pro, pro, ect. You are asserting that high-level women's hockey is equivalent to very low level men's.

In fairness, Women's Olympic Hockey is a step up from D-1, but only one step. The best D-1 players go directly to the Olympic level. And that fact alone makes Women's D-1 interesting.

The chance to see future Olympians play is an interesting thing, but likely not something that is going to be a huge draw (the Olympics itself is losing its luster, and ratings) for a prolonged period of time. The RIT men's program had a player who played on the Israel National Team (Daniel Spivak) and I don't think that was really a big draw for people. And again, being an Olympian is great but the Men's hockey games at the Olympics are one of the highest billings of the event, whereas the women's games are not leveraged in such a way. In direct competition (same venue, event, similar schedule) the women do not offer as exciting of a product. To go back to your previous example, if the USA men's team played that high school team, the score would be separated by several touchdowns.

With regard to the scheduling conflicts, you make an excellent point. Although I've long since gotten used to it, I remain surprised at the number of conflicts that the hockey community tolerates. In Columbus, Buckeye Men and Women play multiple games head-to-head every season, forcing the fan to choose between the two squads. To take it a step further, there's usually one or more "triple conflict nights" when the NHL Blue Jackets are playing in the same timeslot! The hockey community just isn't big enough to be stretched that thin.

In Rochester it is not so bad. The men and women sometimes play on the same day, but the women always play the early game and the men the late game, so there is no conflict. In fact, this likely helps women's attendance. The Americans do conflict on weekends with both programs, but the Americans also play during the week whereas RIT does not, so there is a lot of opportunity for fans to have it all. The only time the men and women conflict is when it really matters, when they are both playing for championships, which is extremely unfortunate.

But I agree, especially given how much hockey teams cost, not to mention the outrageous cost of keeping a proper ice facility, it's hard to believe some teams are staying afloat in areas where there is so much competition from other teams.

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: Attendance & Women's Hockey

Wall o'text incoming.

Both the warning and the reply are much appreciated.

I see what you are saying, but it's not exactly accurate. It's more about comparing them side by side. If my school has college hockey at it, I'm comparing the men's vs women's game. Now of course that wasn't totally fair at RIT given the D3 vs D1 split, but it's as close as possible, and next year will be technically equal.

I agree that the fan is going to compare options side by side, and would note that options include both in-person attendance and TV viewing. What I'm asking you to do is to expand the criteria you use when making choices. The position you've staked out so far is that bigger/stronger/faster is overwhelmingly important, and other factors are swept away by that tide. My position is that bigger/stronger/faster is just one piece of the puzzle, and that there are many reasons to find Women's D-1 Hockey appealing.

There is no comparison to the Stanley Cup. I can't imagine any scenario in the hockey world where there was a hockey event I'd watch over the Stanley Cup Finals, and I think that is nigh-universally true of anyone. But there are a lot of other factors, too. I likely can't get/afford tickets to the Stanley Cup, at least not all 4-7 games. But for the price of a single NHL ticket I could get season tickets for the Tigers.

Well, yeah. You're starting to get there. Compare the NHL Regular season with the NHL PLayoffs. The bigger/stronger/faster variable is a constant, yet the playoffs are a much better show than the regular season. Next compare the NHL Regular Season to D-1 Hockey, either Men's or Women's. The bigger/stronger/faster edge goes to the NHL, yet I usually take the D-1 option. I have many reasons. Among other things, there is an enormous difference in cost, as you mention. The other variables do matter!

If you don't have any other options, you're going to be forced to watch youth, women's, beer league, whatever hockey is available if that is all you can get. But if there are multiple teams out there for people to choose from, they will choose the men's game for these reasons.

Fans can be like lemmings, mindlessly trooping to the top of the pyramid. It's that mentality I'm trying to fight. OSU is as guilty of this herd ethic as any place in the country. If Ohio Stadium could seat 200,000 for Football, we'd probably still sell out. Mens' Hoops has been very successful and does sell out, but it's usually not all that tough of a ticket. Every other OSU team would greatly appreciate more fans.

On one level, my question boils down to this. Is it always better to spend a pile of money for a seat in the nosebleeds, just because it's the biggest event in town? Isn't it possible that going to an event where your presence really makes a difference might sometimes be the better choice?

Don't get me wrong. I love OSU Football and actually attend about half the home games. But I give priority to the OSU Hockey teams for a whole range of reasons. And to everyone who will listen, I tell them it's a great to follow Buckeye Football, but you're not really a true Buckeye fan unless you also follow another sport that isn't dictated by the herd. Similarly, while it's great to follow an NHL team + the Stanley Cup finals, you're not really a true fan of the sport unless you follow it at other levels.

Of course, any hockey is enjoyable and certainly desirable over no hockey. However..

I'm not sure that this is a very good example. You are saying that our international, Olympic women's hockey team was unable to defeat a team of high schoolers. This paints a pretty grim picture for their chances at beating even a D3 level hockey program, let alone a D1 level. If the absolute top-notch/professional women's team struggles against high school programs, than that really makes it a tough sell over going to, say, your local college men's team game and definitely does not put their play at a "very high" level, unless you consider high school hockey to be "high level" compared to college, semi-pro, pro, ect. You are asserting that high-level women's hockey is equivalent to very low level men's.

Sigh. I was afraid the Minnesota HS reference might not connect. To describe MN High School Hockey as "very low level" is absolutely insane. But if you haven't had a chance to see it, I'm know that may be difficult to believe. HS hockey in many other states takes a back seat to Juniors, and often does fit your description. I mentioned that game because it was a real world example, as opposed to a hypothetical claim. All I can say is that I wasn't trying to mislead you in any way. By taking on Roseau HS, Team USA was really, truly taking on a formidable team.

The chance to see future Olympians play is an interesting thing, but likely not something that is going to be a huge draw (the Olympics itself is losing its luster, and ratings) for a prolonged period of time. The RIT men's program had a player who played on the Israel National Team (Daniel Spivak) and I don't think that was really a big draw for people. And again, being an Olympian is great but the Men's hockey games at the Olympics are one of the highest billings of the event, whereas the women's games are not leveraged in such a way. In direct competition (same venue, event, similar schedule) the women do not offer as exciting of a product. To go back to your previous example, if the USA men's team played that high school team, the score would be separated by several touchdowns.

Agree completely, but that's my line! Both the Roseau HS team and the Team USA Women are well worth watching. The fact they couldn't compete with the Team USA Men doesn't diminish them a bit!

In Rochester it is not so bad. The men and women sometimes play on the same day, but the women always play the early game and the men the late game, so there is no conflict. In fact, this likely helps women's attendance. The Americans do conflict on weekends with both programs, but the Americans also play during the week whereas RIT does not, so there is a lot of opportunity for fans to have it all. The only time the men and women conflict is when it really matters, when they are both playing for championships, which is extremely unfortunate.

But I agree, especially given how much hockey teams cost, not to mention the outrageous cost of keeping a proper ice facility, it's hard to believe some teams are staying afloat in areas where there is so much competition from other teams.

Good to hear that Rochester partially addresses the situation. I should be fair to OSU; the Buckeyes do stagger Men's & Women's Hockey on Saturdays, so it is possible to attend both Saturday games. But because the games are at different rinks and the turnaround is tight, most people don't do the doubleheader.

Am enjoying the conversation. Would be glad to get another reply, be it a quip or a wall.

 

[RIT Winters]

Re: Attendance & Women's Hockey

Both the warning and the reply are much appreciated.

I agree that the fan is going to compare options side by side, and would note that options include both in-person attendance and TV viewing. What I'm asking you to do is to expand the criteria you use when making choices. The position you've staked out so far is that bigger/stronger/faster is overwhelmingly important, and other factors are swept away by that tide. My position is that bigger/stronger/faster is just one piece of the puzzle, and that there are many reasons to find Women's D-1 Hockey appealing.

Such as? Some people have different tastes in hockey, they like the open space or the creative ways of getting around no checking, ect. but relatively niche personal preference aside, what do you think gives a D1 women's team a reason to get me in the seat instead of the D1 men?

Well, yeah. You're starting to get there. Compare the NHL Regular season with the NHL PLayoffs. The bigger/stronger/faster variable is a constant, yet the playoffs are a much better show than the regular season. Next compare the NHL Regular Season to D-1 Hockey, either Men's or Women's. The bigger/stronger/faster edge goes to the NHL, yet I usually take the D-1 option. I have many reasons. Among other things, there is an enormous difference in cost, as you mention. The other variables do matter!

Well the reason the playoffs are better is because you have cut out half of the teams and are left with only the good teams, and the sense of urgency is there because any game could end your season, so everyone is going to play their best. This is consistent throughout leagues, not just the NHL.

Things get hazy when we start comparing NHL to NCAA, KHL, Olympics, ect. Then there are a lot of other factors. Obviously you're more apt to go to an OSU hockey game for $10 when they are your team compared to spending however much an NHL ticket costs. Strictly at the NCAA level, things like cost and travel and fandom are negated because even if the men's event is more expensive (as at RIT) it is still a pretty low bar. My decision to not go to the women's games is not based off cost (they are free) or time or my love of RIT. It's just based off the product on the ice.

Fans can be like lemmings, mindlessly trooping to the top of the pyramid. It's that mentality I'm trying to fight. OSU is as guilty of this herd ethic as any place in the country. If Ohio Stadium could seat 200,000 for Football, we'd probably still sell out. Mens' Hoops has been very successful and does sell out, but it's usually not all that tough of a ticket. Every other OSU team would greatly appreciate more fans.

Well sure, but this is true in the pros too. The NFL, NBA, and MLB all make a lot more money than the NHL because they are more popular sports. Believe me, I wish the NHL was #1 but hockey is not the heart of our nation. This applies at the college level too. At RIT we're "lucky" because hockey is all we have at D1, and we have no football team whatsoever, so our hockey program is it.

On one level, my question boils down to this. Is it always better to spend a pile of money for a seat in the nosebleeds, just because it's the biggest event in town? Isn't it possible that going to an event where your presence really makes a difference might sometimes be the better choice?

Depends? If the biggest event in town is your favorite NHL team playing their hated rivals in a game with huge playoff implications, that is a hot ticket. Going to a game with few fans is less fun, in my opinion, inherantly. A huge part of the fun I have at RIT games is going with half a dozen friends, in a building filled with 2000+ other screaming fans, taking it all in. If I go to a women's game, there is going to be 1/4 as many fans and at best 1-2 of my friends, which makes for an environment that is just not as exciting/electric. Sure, I have better seats, but what am I missing?

Sigh. I was afraid the Minnesota HS reference might not connect. To describe MN High School Hockey as "very low level" is absolutely insane. But if you haven't had a chance to see it, I'm know that may be difficult to believe. HS hockey in many other states takes a back seat to Juniors, and often does fit your description. I mentioned that game because it was a real world example, as opposed to a hypothetical claim. All I can say is that I wasn't trying to mislead you in any way. By taking on Roseau HS, Team USA was really, truly taking on a formidable team.

True that I don't know this particular school, but I am extremely doubtful that they would compete seriously against a D3 or D1 men's hockey program. So the integrity of my point remains intact. The best women's team in the world is still, at best, at men's D1 level, and I think that is being wayyyyyy generous. A level at which 90% of players will not make it even to the ECHL.

 

[binnyrus]

Re: Attendance & Women's Hockey

Such as? Some people have different tastes in hockey, they like the open space or the creative ways of getting around no checking, ect. but relatively niche personal preference aside, what do you think gives a D1 women's team a reason to get me in the seat instead of the D1 men?

I'd say that no one on this page is asking anyone to go "instead of". People have their preferences . . . Here at UMD it's very rare for the women and men to be in direct competition - they rarely play at home the same weekend. I don't think of the women's game as "getting around no checking" . . . I just don't think of it that way. It's more about winning the game within the given rules. As simple as that. I don't really compare games played by a different set of rules.

I think there's a much deeper reason that people don't attend most women's sporting events. There's a whole cultural aspect. One that our society seems not (yet) ready to face and it is: Girls should cheer for boys . . . and boys should cheer for boys. Rarely (unless you're a good friend or family member) is it "okay" for anyone to cheer for girls en masse. The only common change to this group behavior is the Olympics. I don't know why it is . . . maybe the puritanical roots of our society . . . but right now it would seem that no matter how good a woman's sport is - not matter how fast or physical, no matter how great the level of competition there's just some taboo about going all out in support of "the girls".

 

[giwan]

Re: Attendance & Women's Hockey

Such as? Some people have different tastes in hockey, they like the open space or the creative ways of getting around no checking, ect. but relatively niche personal preference aside, what do you think gives a D1 women's team a reason to get me in the seat instead of the D1 men?

You prove my previous point in that you are exactly not the type to market the women's game too. There is always a group that will want to watch something because they believe it to be a superior product and that is their preference/choice. Honestly the only way I would market to a group like that would be add a couple of bucks to the men's ticket and include the women's ticket. This of course assuming the women's game is not played concurrently.

I believe there are many others to market the game to locally for increasing attendance, just need to be more creative.

Take some cues from women's bouncy ball there are lessons to learn there.

 

[Hux]

Re: Attendance & Women's Hockey

I think there's a much deeper reason that people don't attend most women's sporting events. There's a whole cultural aspect. One that our society seems not (yet) ready to face and it is: Girls should cheer for boys . . . and boys should cheer for boys. Rarely (unless you're a good friend or family member) is it "okay" for anyone to cheer for girls en masse. The only common change to this group behavior is the Olympics. I don't know why it is . . . maybe the puritanical roots of our society . . . but right now it would seem that no matter how good a woman's sport is - not matter how fast or physical, no matter how great the level of competition there's just some taboo about going all out in support of "the girls".

Jeez, I hope not. I know when I was at UMass (30 years ago) the women's lacrosse games were very well attended. In fact, on Wednesday afternoons in the spring it was a given that you went to watch lacrosse, and grill on the side of the hill next to the field.

 

[CanHockGuy]

Re: Attendance & Women's Hockey

If this high school has for example (junior and thereabouts players on it) I can see them giving the women's team a problem. Where I come from, there are rules in place where high school players can only play for their high school up to AAA hockey representative. When I played, you couldn't play high school if you played rep (that was silly and was eventually changed obviously.) Look at the players on this team and where they play their hockey outside of school; then if you tell me they only play high school hockey, we'll have a problem. Either that or I don't understand your system. This national team would not have a chance against descent D3 or D1 teams, and yup, the best women in the world would get destroyed by a D1 men's team. The women can compete with Midget AAA teams (with limited contact) which are generally weaker than better minor midget AAA teams (15 years old in their draft year.) This is the reality.

 

[binnyrus]

Re: Attendance & Women's Hockey

If this high school has for example (junior and thereabouts players on it) I can see them giving the women's team a problem. Where I come from, there are rules in place where high school players can only play for their high school up to AAA hockey representative. When I played, you couldn't play high school if you played rep (that was silly and was eventually changed obviously.) Look at the players on this team and where they play their hockey outside of school; then if you tell me they only play high school hockey, we'll have a problem. Either that or I don't understand your system. This national team would not have a chance against descent D3 or D1 teams, and yup, the best women in the world would get destroyed by a D1 men's team. The women can compete with Midget AAA teams (with limited contact) which are generally weaker than better minor midget AAA teams (15 years old in their draft year.) This is the reality.

Again, comparing. Apples and oranges. Doesn't seem worth the effort . . . and I think, not the point. So what, people can only be enthusiastic and supportive of the men's game?? What this comparison boils down to is this: women's sports can't be viable. I say BS to that.

 

[giwan]

Re: Attendance & Women's Hockey

Jeez, I hope not. I know when I was at UMass (30 years ago) the women's lacrosse games were very well attended. In fact, on Wednesday afternoons in the spring it was a given that you went to watch lacrosse, and grill on the side of the hill next to the field.

Could it really be, spring, nice outside, grill, beer and oh yeah a lacrosse match?

I happen to agree about the cultural aspect, and I may get flamed but women do not support other women in sports en-mass. Small close groups will but not as a norm. Women are more then 50% of the population.

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: Attendance & Women's Hockey

Just going to focus on a couple of your comments this time...

Such as? Some people have different tastes in hockey, they like the open space or the creative ways of getting around no checking, ect. but relatively niche personal preference aside, what do you think gives a D1 women's team a reason to get me in the seat instead of the D1 men?

There are many reasons, some of which you mention elsewhere and reject. But my first try at a list:

Where growth is possible, take an active role and help hockey grow.
Hockey is the world's greatest sport. Everyone, male or female, should have the opportunity to play and watch. Be part of the effort.

A High Percentage of Women's D-1 Players Stay for 4 Years.
Women's Hockey players are real student athletes. Very few are "one and done." For the regular attendee, it's much more satisfying to follow a player's career for 4 years as opposed to 1. Lots of Men's players fit this description too, of course. All I'm really saying is that if you believe that playing for the university is an important goal in and of itself, the Women's teams deserve our support. These players aren't just "passing through" on their way to a higher level. Being a Buckeye or a Tiger truly matters to them.

Better Instructional Models
For a recreational hockey player trying to pick up hockey pointers, Women's D-1 may well be a better choice than the Men. In many cases, the Men are simply elite athletes, and they're doing things at a speed the average athlete simply isn't capable of. But watching a well coached Women's team play may mean picking up some things us mere mortals might actually use on the ice.

More Flow
Due to the lack of checking, the Women's game sometimes has more flow than the Men's game. Yeah, it's a complicated question, and I don't mean to denigrate effective defense -- regardless of gender. But this is far more than a question of "open space." A series of crisp passes resulting in a great scoring chance is a thing of beauty. Defense first hockey is becoming more prevalent in the Men's game, making it a little less watchable. Conversely, for those who like playmaking, the Women's game may be becoming a little more attractive. This is also a reason why the NHL playoffs are better than the Regular Season. The worst of the defense-only teams are gone from the field.

Great Seats
Outstanding vantage points, obtainable for free or priced very inexpensively.

Get In On The Ground Level
It's OK to follow the herd some of the time, but being a contrarian also has its advantages. Want to follow the most popular team in town? No worries, join the bandwagon. But I truly believe that supporting a rising program through thick and thin is a rewarding experience. If you have the time to support one team in each category, so much the better. As others have noted, this needn't be an either-or choice.

I could go on. But I'm guessing that if you're not on board by now, you won't be.

True that I don't know this particular school, but I am extremely doubtful that they would compete seriously against a D3 or D1 men's hockey program. So the integrity of my point remains intact. The best women's team in the world is still, at best, at men's D1 level, and I think that is being wayyyyyy generous. A level at which 90% of players will not make it even to the ECHL.

Integrity isn't at issue. The challenge has been getting us on the same page on this specific item. So far we've been two ships passing in the night. I'll give it one more shot.

How a Minnesota Boys HS team would do against a Men's College Team is pretty much irrelevant to me. But not wanting to dodge the question, I'll say this: The top HS teams could probably have a respectable scrimmage against a D-3 team. Similarly, in other sports, sometimes Junior Colleges have scrimmages against D-3 schools and hold their own. Usually, experience and maturity would be the deciding factor. If score were kept, it probably wouldn't be close. But they wouldn't be embarassing mismatches. High School Champs against a D-1 team? Granted, that's an embarrassing mismatch. But again, it's also beside the point -- at least the point I'm trying to make. I raised the Roseau/Team USA example to try to convey to you the approximate level the Elite Women are playing at. That's important because there certainly are hockey games that are for close friends and family only. I really can't imagine going to random House League PeeWee games, knowing no one involved. My point is that Elite Women's Hockey is well above the minimum bar to be watchable by a fan. There are many levels of play that meet that minimum standard. The precise rank order of the watchable leagues is of little importance to me, but apparently of enormous importance to you.

 

[CanHockGuy]

Re: Attendance & Women's Hockey

Again, comparing. Apples and oranges. Doesn't seem worth the effort . . . and I think, not the point. So what, people can only be enthusiastic and supportive of the men's game?? What this comparison boils down to is this: women's sports can't be viable. I say BS to that.

Binny...I never really said that women's sports can't be viable. I would hope it could-- but how? I was only making a comparison to what was formerly said. Better hockey, or for that matter, any sport will always trump a weaker one. I love women's hockey, and very much enjoy watching it for what it is. I have kid's that play on both sides fortunately, and understand the challenges. As I said before on this thread, it is important that men get behind women's hockey in general. We came close last year, but if you know what I mean, it didn't happen.

 

[dave1381]

Re: Attendance & Women's Hockey

I'm calling out RIT's bogus claim that we can infer from current attendance numbers how many people share his opinions about the quality of the men's game versus the quality of the women's game.

People attend games for lots of reasons other than the quality of play. Teams build fan bases over time. When men's hockey has a history that dates back before Title IX, and men's college sports were a top attraction before women even had the right the vote, then of course women's sports and women's college hockey are going to be at a huge disadvantage when it comes to attracting fans. The differences in attendance result from a lot more than differences in the overall quality of play.

 

[CanHockGuy]

Re: Attendance & Women's Hockey

I'm calling out RIT's bogus claim that we can infer from current attendance numbers how many people share his opinions about the quality of the men's game versus the quality of the women's game.

People attend games for lots of reasons other than the quality of play. Teams build fan bases over time. When men's hockey has a history that dates back before Title IX, and men's college sports were a top attraction before women even had the right the vote, then of course women's sports and women's college hockey are going to be at a huge disadvantage when it comes to attracting fans. The differences in attendance result from a lot more than differences in the overall quality of play.

Ok then big guy or girl....then what.

 

[CTR]

Re: Attendance & Women's Hockey

As a Badger fan, I'll throw in my two cent's worth. Wisconsin promotes the women's game with birthday parties in the concourses and other special events (i.e. the annual "Fill the Bowl" game, which includes a food drive), but it also does this for the women's basketball team. I think a lot depends on how strong hockey is at the lower levels; I love seeing young girls come out to the game and being in awe of the women's players. UW benefits from having a good team and a Madison hero (Mark Johnson) as coach.

A couple other miscellaneous thoughts:

1) Anyone who saw Minnesota v. Wisconsin last week saw women's hockey at its peak. I maintain that the speed in that game was equal to the median or lower men's game. The WCHA is just that much better than the eastern teams.

2) Goldy is a pain in the butt at games. He was wandering around the arena, DURING THE GAME, getting in the way of those trying to see the game. If your mascot doesn't respect the game, why should anyone else.

3) Optimistically, I think attendance will build over time, but was very disappointed in the attendance at Duluth. Parents of the players are almost embarrassingly grateful when a non-relative comes to watch the women play.

4) I saw some good hockey last weekend.

 

[CanHockGuy]

Re: Attendance & Women's Hockey

As a Badger fan, I'll throw in my two cent's worth. Wisconsin promotes the women's game with birthday parties in the concourses and other special events (i.e. the annual "Fill the Bowl" game, which includes a food drive), but it also does this for the women's basketball team. I think a lot depends on how strong hockey is at the lower levels; I love seeing young girls come out to the game and being in awe of the women's players. UW benefits from having a good team and a Madison hero (Mark Johnson) as coach.

A couple other miscellaneous thoughts:

1) Anyone who saw Minnesota v. Wisconsin last week saw women's hockey at its peak. I maintain that the speed in that game was equal to the median or lower men's game. The WCHA is just that much better than the eastern teams.

2) Goldy is a pain in the butt at games. He was wandering around the arena, DURING THE GAME, getting in the way of those trying to see the game. If your mascot doesn't respect the game, why should anyone else.

3) Optimistically, I think attendance will build over time, but was very disappointed in the attendance at Duluth. Parents of the players are almost embarrassingly grateful when a non-relative comes to watch the women play.

4) I saw some good hockey last weekend.

Well...

 

[dave1381]

Re: Attendance & Women's Hockey

Ok then big guy or girl....then what.

Well, mainly we call out journalists and others who denigrate the sport simply because of the attendance gaps, and hope the culture slowly corrects itself.

 

[CanHockGuy]

Re: Attendance & Women's Hockey

Well, mainly we call out journalists and others who denigrate the sport simply because of the attendance gaps, and hope the culture slowly corrects itself.

Good call. The sport needs a better identity at the highest level first, then there may be a trickle down effect. Attendance is the whole idea. Parity might be a good idea too. The Olympic committee prefers it.

 

[dave1381]

Re: Attendance & Women's Hockey

Good call. The sport needs a better identity at the highest level first, then there may be a trickle down effect. Attendance is the whole idea. Parity might be a good idea too. The Olympic committee prefers it.

On that note, I'm glad that Angela Ruggiero seems to be taking a prominent role in the IOC.