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.

NWHL Announcement Event On Tuesday In Saint Paul

Re: NWHL Announcement Event On Tuesday In Saint Paul

Rightnut said:
What is the endgame? Have the NHL subsidize a losing business indefinitely? How much of an NHL subsidy will be enough? As much as I love and support women’s hockey- these players don’t “deserve” anything. If it’s not making money- that’s it. How much do they think they “deserve” to make? $50k? Why do they deserve that? I can’t say I “deserve” anything in my profession. If the NHL decides it’s in its interest to subside a league- that’s its decision. But I don’t think this was the right move. Now there is no league for the NHL to give any support to and it can sit back and continue to say women’s hockey can’t get its act together.
Click to expand...

The NBA continues to heavily subsidize the WNBA. They consider it a marketing expense, that supporting a women's league broadens overall interest in the game. It also helps that a lot of NBA players have been very vocal about their support for the women's game.

Your last two sentences are entirely irrelevant. To the extent that Gery Bettman has made anything clear, it's that the NHL will not support the NWHL beyond a token subsidy ($20,000 per team), full stop. Torpedoing the NWHL can't set back the development of an NHL backed league, and, if we take Bettman's comments at face value, can only hasten it. And the players' position is that the NWHL, as it currently exists, is not a viable option in which to play. With a team salary cap of $100,000 for a full roster, those players who are not receiving a national team subsidy simply can't make it enough of a priority to justify the idea that it's a professional league.

Lastly, the idea that what we deserve is tied solely to how much money we generate has made our society demonstrably poorer.
 
Re: NWHL Announcement Event On Tuesday In Saint Paul

I think it’s really scary what the women are doing but it’s also maybe good to find out where you stand. Bettman wouldn’t owe them a league, except for the fact that he has said if there was no league he would roll one out. So that’s where the pressure on the NHL is coming from. Plus Cassie Campbell went hard about a year ago saying the NHL has a plan, etc.

But we only have to look to this past weekend when the CW had its auction to know that when it mattered people with power, not just the NHL, were silent and left the women to struggle.

It’s interesting to hear people say there’s no market for this. The women haven’t been given a fair chance to create the market. Look at yesterday when social media exploded in a negative way because the women dared to want better for themselves. It’s just one example of the challenges the women face. But the thing is, we know the potential for a market exists - Whitecaps, Beauts, Canadiennes, and to a lesser extent the Pride, all had good support. Minnesota and Wisconsin get great crowds in college. This is not impossible.

One of the most encouraging things I saw yesterday was Bauer Hockey’s advertisement and statement. Hopefully more corporations, media and everyday fans will see the benefit of supporting women’s hockey.
 
Re: NWHL Announcement Event On Tuesday In Saint Paul

Still Eeyore said:
And the players' position is that the NWHL, as it currently exists, is not a viable option in which to play. With a team salary cap of $100,000 for a full roster, those players who are not receiving a national team subsidy simply can't make it enough of a priority to justify the idea that it's a professional league.
Click to expand...
Then why did the players support the CWHL?

Sean
 
Re: NWHL Announcement Event On Tuesday In Saint Paul

I don't think North America is ready to support a women's hockey league. Why? Because outside of Minneapolis and Madison no one really cares enough to go watch at the college level. The attendance out east is appalling. Major metro cities in the midwest, south and west have zero women's college hockey teams. The game has to grow from the collegiate level out.
 
Re: NWHL Announcement Event On Tuesday In Saint Paul

Timothy A said:
I don't think North America is ready to support a women's hockey league. Why? Because outside of Minneapolis and Madison no one really cares enough to go watch at the college level. The attendance out east is appalling. Major metro cities in the midwest, south and west have zero women's college hockey teams. The game has to grow from the collegiate level out.
Click to expand...

Just because Chicago, Detroit, New York, etc., don't have a strong D1 presence doesn't mean that a women's professional team can't have success there. Get outside your Madison bubble. I was at several Worlds games in Plymouth, MI-the place was packed, the atmospherere was electric.

Just listen to one of your own:
https://www.sportsnet.ca/shows/tim-and-sid-show/sarah-nurse-talks-whats-next-womens-hockey/
 
Re: NWHL Announcement Event On Tuesday In Saint Paul

arenalife said:
Just because Chicago, Detroit, New York, etc., don't have a strong D1 presence doesn't mean that a women's professional team can't have success there. Get outside your Madison bubble. I was at several Worlds games in Plymouth, MI-the place was packed, the atmospherere was electric.

Just listen to one of your own:
https://www.sportsnet.ca/shows/tim-and-sid-show/sarah-nurse-talks-whats-next-womens-hockey/
Click to expand...

Worlds are one thing, but 2 pro teams playing are another.
 
Re: NWHL Announcement Event On Tuesday In Saint Paul

Timothy A said:
I don't think North America is ready to support a women's hockey league. Why? Because outside of Minneapolis and Madison no one really cares enough to go watch at the college level. The attendance out east is appalling. Major metro cities in the midwest, south and west have zero women's college hockey teams. The game has to grow from the collegiate level out.
Click to expand...

It’s hard to disagree with this. Women’s hockey might be the world’s greatest team sport, but it remains the world’s greatest niche team sport. It’s amazing to be at Conte or Matthews or Bright for a regular season game and find oneself virtually alone. The contrast with the Minny and Wisco scene just underscores the fact that either the game is in your blood or you are lucky enough to have stumbled across it, Plymouth, MI notwithstanding. (As for lacrosse, the appeal of which has always been lost on me, this venture sounds like a moonshot, complete with space cadets - - - helmet cams, fantasy, casinos!)
 
Still Eeyore said:
The NBA continues to heavily subsidize the WNBA. They consider it a marketing expense, that supporting a women's league broadens overall interest in the game. It also helps that a lot of NBA players have been very vocal about their support for the women's game.

Your last two sentences are entirely irrelevant. To the extent that Gery Bettman has made anything clear, it's that the NHL will not support the NWHL beyond a token subsidy ($20,000 per team), full stop. Torpedoing the NWHL can't set back the development of an NHL backed league, and, if we take Bettman's comments at face value, can only hasten it. And the players' position is that the NWHL, as it currently exists, is not a viable option in which to play. With a team salary cap of $100,000 for a full roster, those players who are not receiving a national team subsidy simply can't make it enough of a priority to justify the idea that it's a professional league.

Lastly, the idea that what we deserve is tied solely to how much money we generate has made our society demonstrably poorer.
Click to expand...

How do you define what we deserve? Is it what you feel you deserve?

You deserve what you earn. The problem with society today is too many people don’t understand that. That’s why we love sports. No one is given anything. They earn the goal, the touchdown, the basket. Otherwise teams may as well just take turns scoring/winning etc. Dont the Cleveland Browns deserve a super bowl?
 
Rightnut said:
How do you define what we deserve? Is it what you feel you deserve?

You deserve what you earn. The problem with society today is too many people don’t understand that. That’s why we love sports. No one is given anything. They earn the goal, the touchdown, the basket. Otherwise teams may as well just take turns scoring/winning etc. Dont the Cleveland Browns deserve a super bowl?
Click to expand...

But we give kids who go oh-fer the season a trophy at the end of the season. We start teaching them you don't have to work hard to earn a trophy real early.
 
I can only hope this is all a message to the NHL that the players have come together to say, "We want to be aligned with you now and going forward. We do not want to be run on a shoestring budget anymore. We are breaking our ties with the NWHL. Let's work together to make this happen the best way possible."

The National Team players threatened to boycott the last Olympics unless they got what they wanted from USA Hockey and they won that battle. Now they are boycotting their current league to try to get what they want. Let's hope this isn't a pattern they feel is going to work for them every time they want something more. If you look up the history of the NHL and other men's minor pro leagues, they all started from humble beginnings. Players had to have real jobs because they weren't getting paid enough to sustain themselves and their families on their pro hockey income. You have to walk before you can run. You have to earn your income and sometimes it's a slow growing process.

That's why I hope this is a not-so-subtle signal to the NHL that the players want to be a part of a joint future together. If not that, their boycott of their current situation is going to be answered and resolved by nobody. Who besides the NHL is going to hear their plea?! Who else is going to fund a new league in full?!
 
Last edited:
Re: NWHL Announcement Event On Tuesday In Saint Paul

Rightnut said:
How do you define what we deserve? Is it what you feel you deserve?

You deserve what you earn. The problem with society today is too many people don’t understand that. That’s why we love sports. No one is given anything. They earn the goal, the touchdown, the basket. Otherwise teams may as well just take turns scoring/winning etc. Dont the Cleveland Browns deserve a super bowl?
Click to expand...
The word deserve just confuses the issue. The question is whether there's a deal available that benefits both the players and the NHL.

The NYT piece linked by thirdtime's suggests that players could make a go of it at $25,000 per year plus benefits. That isn't get-rich-quick money, but I'd agree that it makes playing a viable option.

Now, what about the NHL? If they want to treat funding at that level as a charitable donation, you've already got a deal. But I take it they don't, and I won't second guess that. So where's the value for the NHL?

In the short term, the only real way to justify the expense is public relations & marketing. Gate receipts in a new league aren't going to cover expenses at $25,000 per player. Perhaps someday, but not now. Obviously the NHL already spends a ton on marketing. Is there room in the current marketing budget to cover the cost of a new league? Or, are new marketing dollars available? As just one possibility, if the Women's league played during the summer months, maybe that would justify new marketing expenditures.

In the long term, the idea would be to grow the game. More Women playing the sport (at all levels) should mean an overall increase in professional hockey's fanbase. In other words, more NHL games viewed on TV, more NHL tickets sold. And just maybe, break even status or modest profits for the Women's games as that league grows.

And let's not forget that growing hockey's fanbase is pretty important. Unlike the other "major" sports, we're a little short of casual fans. For hockey people, it's either your favorite sport, or pretty close to it. For others, hockey usually isn't on their radar screens. As such, creating hockey people should be a high priority -- even if it's a long term investment.

The "deserve formulation" focuses only on short term profit & loss for a new league. As such, it misses the possibilities described above.
 
Re: NWHL Announcement Event On Tuesday In Saint Paul

Rightnut said:
Don't the Cleveland Browns deserve a Super Bowl?
Click to expand...
Perhaps the Original Browns did, the year Ernest Byner fumbled in the AFC Championship Game.;)

But the New Browns have never deserved a Super Bowl and probably never will.:D
 
Re: NWHL Announcement Event On Tuesday In Saint Paul

pgb-ohio said:
The word deserve just confuses the issue. The question is whether there's a deal available that benefits both the players and the NHL.

The NYT piece linked by thirdtime's suggests that players could make a go of it at $25,000 per year plus benefits. That isn't get-rich-quick money, but I'd agree that it makes playing a viable option.

Now, what about the NHL? If they want to treat funding at that level as a charitable donation, you've already got a deal. But I take it they don't, and I won't second guess that. So where's the value for the NHL?

In the short term, the only real way to justify the expense is public relations & marketing. Gate receipts in a new league aren't going to cover expenses at $25,000 per player. Perhaps someday, but not now. Obviously the NHL already spends a ton on marketing. Is there room in the current marketing budget to cover the cost of a new league? Or, are new marketing dollars available? As just one possibility, if the Women's league played during the summer months, maybe that would justify new marketing expenditures.

In the long term, the idea would be to grow the game. More Women playing the sport (at all levels) should mean an overall increase in professional hockey's fanbase. In other words, more NHL games viewed on TV, more NHL tickets sold. And just maybe, break even status or modest profits for the Women's games as that league grows.

And let's not forget that growing hockey's fanbase is pretty important. Unlike the other "major" sports, we're a little short of casual fans. For hockey people, it's either your favorite sport, or pretty close to it. For others, hockey usually isn't on their radar screens. As such, creating hockey people should be a high priority -- even if it's a long term investment.

The "deserve formulation" focuses only on short term profit & loss for a new league. As such, it misses the possibilities described above.
Click to expand...


there is no professional softball league, not volleyball, two sports vastly more popular than hockey
you have to give Millenials a break, they can't help it that they were brought up by parents with their head up their rear, they deserve EVERYTHING

just saw an article in NYT saying 70% of them still depend on support from their parents
 
Last edited:
Re: NWHL Announcement Event On Tuesday In Saint Paul

pokechecker said:
there is no professional softball league, not volleyball, two sports vastly more popular than hockey...
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that's true. I'm pretty sure beach volleyball has a pro circuit. Back in the day, there was an indoor pro volleyball team called the Minnesota Monarchs, though I suppose their league is long gone.

Don't really know. I'm certainly not rooting for softball & volleyball to fail if they're trying to maintain or form leagues. But I don't spend enough time with either of those sports to have any real stake in such efforts.

Regardless, the above has nothing to do with the point I was making. Repeating: The question is whether the players and the NHL can cut a deal that's beneficial to both sides. Asking that long term considerations be taken into account is just a call for both sides to make smart decisions.

If the current effort by Women's Hockey to join forces with the NHL falls short this time? Well, new start-ups fail all the time. That's capitalism. But if Hockey can succeed where others have struggled, good for us.
 
Re: NWHL Announcement Event On Tuesday In Saint Paul

There is so much time and money spent in the US on sports like football, baseball, basketball, golf, and auto racing, that the other sports (and there are a bunch of them) are fighting for the slices of the pie that are left. It has taken a long time for something as popular as soccer to gain much of a foothold.
 
Re: NWHL Announcement Event On Tuesday In Saint Paul

(linked from the StarTribune)

"Amanda Kessel made $8,000 for the Metropolitan Riveters of the National Women’s Hockey League this season. Her brother, Phil, is making $8 million per season for the Pittsburgh Penguins. Sure, it’s an apples-to-oranges comparison, given the average home attendance (721 vs. 18,565) and length of regular season (16 games vs. 82), but it's interesting nonetheless."

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappen...-hockey-stars-refuse-to-hit-the-ice-1.5120096
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top