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.
"It's game-changing" (NWHL)
- Thread starter thirdtime's . . .
- Start date
The Devils getting behind the Riveters is great news. Look for other NHL teams to follow suit which would be huge.
Russell Jaslow
Registered User
Re: "It's game-changing" (NWHL)
The only reason the WNBA survives at all is because it is subsidized by the NBA.
Would be nice if the NHL and/or its teams had a similar arrangement with a women's league.
The only reason the WNBA survives at all is because it is subsidized by the NBA.
Would be nice if the NHL and/or its teams had a similar arrangement with a women's league.
I think the ideal scenario is for the NWHL and CWHL to join forces and for the NHL to back up that new/merged women's pro league.
Russell Jaslow
Registered User
We ARE talking the NHL here, right??
Yes.
Russell Jaslow
Registered User
Re: "It's game-changing" (NWHL)
I think there are actually three people in the entire world who care...
I think there are actually three people in the entire world who care...
Re: "It's game-changing" (NWHL)
lol...........unless you live in Minnesota
lol...........unless you live in Minnesota
Adjusted your post.
Re: "It's game-changing" (NWHL)
Again, not in Minnesota. I have more Gopher women's hockey season ticket holders who are also passionate Lynx fans just in my Facebook feed than I have fingers.
Again, not in Minnesota. I have more Gopher women's hockey season ticket holders who are also passionate Lynx fans just in my Facebook feed than I have fingers.
Personally, I think all women's hockey fans should learn more about the WNBA and it's relationship with and support from the NBA because support from the NHL is the best answer for the immediate and long-term success of legitimate pro hockey for women here and in Canada.
CrossCheck
New member
Re: "It's game-changing" (NWHL)
honestly...both leagues are a joke...especially the women's pro hockey league....unless and until WOMEN support their own....they will fail. Take it to the bank
honestly...both leagues are a joke...especially the women's pro hockey league....unless and until WOMEN support their own....they will fail. Take it to the bank
pokechecker
Banned
Re: "It's game-changing" (NWHL)
but do you need all of your toes in addition to your fingers?
The Lynx have one 4 championships and two more runner ups, yet this year only one game in the finals was televised on broadcast TV.
I wouldn't get too excited about the NHL providing marketing to the WNHL, they haven't exactly been overly successful marketing the NHL.
but do you need all of your toes in addition to your fingers?
The Lynx have one 4 championships and two more runner ups, yet this year only one game in the finals was televised on broadcast TV.
I wouldn't get too excited about the NHL providing marketing to the WNHL, they haven't exactly been overly successful marketing the NHL.
TonyTheTiger20
#SOAR
Re: "It's game-changing" (NWHL)
This is awfully rich coming from fans of a sport that is about 100x more niche than WBB is.
Russell Jaslow
Registered User
Re: "It's game-changing" (NWHL)
I was waiting for this.
Like CrossCheck alluded to, women's pro team sports can't survive without subsidies. How many pro women's soccer leagues have we've gone through? My knock against the WNBA wasn't just a knock against women's basketball, it was a knock against a sport that only survives because the men subsidize it. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't mean anyone cares about the sport.
Individual women's pro sports tend to do pretty good -- tennis, golf, figure skating. But team pro sports just can't get the proper following.
I was waiting for this.
Like CrossCheck alluded to, women's pro team sports can't survive without subsidies. How many pro women's soccer leagues have we've gone through? My knock against the WNBA wasn't just a knock against women's basketball, it was a knock against a sport that only survives because the men subsidize it. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't mean anyone cares about the sport.
Individual women's pro sports tend to do pretty good -- tennis, golf, figure skating. But team pro sports just can't get the proper following.
TonyTheTiger20
#SOAR
Re: "It's game-changing" (NWHL)
Also I've always found it strange that women's individual pro sports do well and the team sports don't. I've never really been able to come up with a strong enough reason to persuade myself why that is.
I mean you're not wrong!I was waiting for this.
Like CrossCheck alluded to, women's pro team sports can't survive without subsidies. How many pro women's soccer leagues have we've gone through? My knock against the WNBA wasn't just a knock against women's basketball, it was a knock against a sport that only survives because the men subsidize it. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't mean anyone cares about the sport.
Individual women's pro sports tend to do pretty good -- tennis, golf, figure skating. But team pro sports just can't get the proper following.
Also I've always found it strange that women's individual pro sports do well and the team sports don't. I've never really been able to come up with a strong enough reason to persuade myself why that is.
Re: "It's game-changing" (NWHL)
I have no idea how well the LPGA does, but I can lay out some of the reasons that women's tennis is a success:
1) For a while, women's tennis was simply a better sport than men's. (I'm talking about singles here; I have no explanation for why the rest of the world doesn't recognize the obvious fact that doubles is a vastly more interesting sport to watch.) Men's tennis has become nothing but huge serves, nifty service returns, and then monotonous baseline rallies if neither of those end the point. It's as if the entire world has nothing but clay surfaces anymore. Unfortunately, the women's game has headed down a similar path the last few years. Requiring everyone to play with 1974 racket technology would lead to an enormous improvement in the game, but they can't do anything in that direction, because the sport is in thrall to the equipment companies.
2) There have been stretches during which women's tennis has had more compelling rivalries and outcomes than men's. For all that sports fans will tell you that they want wide open fields in which anyone can win, their money strongly suggests that they are lying when they do. They want dominant players/teams. The Williams sisters have provided that, with the icing of controversy and outspokeness. Among the Big 4 that has dominated the men's side since, roughly, the days of ancient Egypt, I like Federer and Murray (Djokovic and Nadel not so much), but between the four of them, there isn't enough displayed personality to fill a thimble. It's been easier to get excited about the women's side of the draws.
3) Probably most importantly, there has been a long succession of female players who have demanded equal prize money and equal treatment (including having matches featured at center court) at the majors. The most obvious is Billie Jean King, but she was hardly alone. From the dawn of the Open era, and the rise in prize money that went along with it, the women have been unified in their goals. They've been pulling off the same act that the U.S. national hockey team did last spring for 45 years. They've developed the same culture that the MLB players' union has, in which the top players remain committed to the collective goals. Insisting on being as much a part of the spectacle of the major tournaments as the men resulted in the audience becoming as invested in them. Unfortunately, I don't see how to replicate this, because tennis is unique in having all four of its showpiece events every year putting the men and the women together in the event, and not just every four years in the Olympics. It's just a lot harder to pay attention only to the men than it is in, say, hockey.
I have no idea how well the LPGA does, but I can lay out some of the reasons that women's tennis is a success:
1) For a while, women's tennis was simply a better sport than men's. (I'm talking about singles here; I have no explanation for why the rest of the world doesn't recognize the obvious fact that doubles is a vastly more interesting sport to watch.) Men's tennis has become nothing but huge serves, nifty service returns, and then monotonous baseline rallies if neither of those end the point. It's as if the entire world has nothing but clay surfaces anymore. Unfortunately, the women's game has headed down a similar path the last few years. Requiring everyone to play with 1974 racket technology would lead to an enormous improvement in the game, but they can't do anything in that direction, because the sport is in thrall to the equipment companies.
2) There have been stretches during which women's tennis has had more compelling rivalries and outcomes than men's. For all that sports fans will tell you that they want wide open fields in which anyone can win, their money strongly suggests that they are lying when they do. They want dominant players/teams. The Williams sisters have provided that, with the icing of controversy and outspokeness. Among the Big 4 that has dominated the men's side since, roughly, the days of ancient Egypt, I like Federer and Murray (Djokovic and Nadel not so much), but between the four of them, there isn't enough displayed personality to fill a thimble. It's been easier to get excited about the women's side of the draws.
3) Probably most importantly, there has been a long succession of female players who have demanded equal prize money and equal treatment (including having matches featured at center court) at the majors. The most obvious is Billie Jean King, but she was hardly alone. From the dawn of the Open era, and the rise in prize money that went along with it, the women have been unified in their goals. They've been pulling off the same act that the U.S. national hockey team did last spring for 45 years. They've developed the same culture that the MLB players' union has, in which the top players remain committed to the collective goals. Insisting on being as much a part of the spectacle of the major tournaments as the men resulted in the audience becoming as invested in them. Unfortunately, I don't see how to replicate this, because tennis is unique in having all four of its showpiece events every year putting the men and the women together in the event, and not just every four years in the Olympics. It's just a lot harder to pay attention only to the men than it is in, say, hockey.
thirdtime's . . .
Active member
Re: "It's game-changing" (NWHL)
"Voices grow louder for merger . . ."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/sports/hockey/cwhl-nwhl-merger.html?ref=todayspaper
"Voices grow louder for merger . . ."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/sports/hockey/cwhl-nwhl-merger.html?ref=todayspaper