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.

The WJC Thread. USA! USA! USA!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gurtholfin
  • Start date Start date
Re: The WJC Thread. USA! USA! USA!

Troubling stat we all know about during the telecast last night. They mentioned that the USA had 500,000 registered hockey players including 262,000 boys. I think that number is down from over 400,000 boys a decade or two ago. The numbers keep getting masked because of the growth of girls hockey.

So yes the USA elite players are better than ever before and elite youth coaching has never been better, but the talent pool is shrinking at an alarming rate.
 
Re: The WJC Thread. USA! USA! USA!

4four4 said:
Did pro athletes ruin what was once amateur national teams?
Click to expand...

I didn't want to be the first to bring it up, but now that you mention it... it'd certainly be interesting to see if weekend athletes or even college students decide to try out for these national teams, and what may come of it...
 
Re: The WJC Thread. USA! USA! USA!

dggoddard said:
Troubling stat we all know about during the telecast last night. They mentioned that the USA had 500,000 registered hockey players including 262,000 boys. I think that number is down from over 400,000 boys a decade ago. The numbers keep getting masked because of the growth of girls hockey.

So yes the USA elite players are better than ever before and elite youth coaching has never been better, but the talent pool is shrinking at an alarming rate.
Click to expand...

It has gotten expensive to play hockey and if teams like Boston, Chicago or Detroit have long droughts of mismangement fans leave their teams for other sports.
 
Re: The WJC Thread. USA! USA! USA!

Puck Swami said:
Frankly, outside of the Olympics, Americans really don't support most of our national teams very well, even in sports where we dominate. Or Team USA at the World Baseball Classic?
Click to expand...

It might help if the USA actually medaled in the sport we supposedly dominate. :p
 
Re: The WJC Thread. USA! USA! USA!

Russell Jaslow said:
Or at least invented...
Click to expand...

Actually, in speaking of that, I think that the Olympics is actually what turned me off of basketball, when the USA lost in the first round-robin game because they weren't taking the game seriously (aside from, I think, Tim Duncan). Unfortunately I think these days some sports have just turned into a forum for parading celebrities, which is why club teams are so popular (they play for money and media exposure), as opposed to international play (where the prize truly is international pride).
 
Re: The WJC Thread. USA! USA! USA!

4four4 said:
Did pro athletes ruin what was once amateur national teams?
Click to expand...

No. The amateur thing has always been something of a sham even going back to the ancient greeks, who awarded Olympic athletes with huge prizes for Olympic victories. In the early years of the Modern Olympics,(1890s -1930s) amateurism was used to keep the lower classes out of the Games, since only rich folk have the time to train competitiuvely. For more on that, watch Chariots of Fire, the 1981 academy award winner that takes on the question of amateurism the way the British upper classes defined it. Finally, from the 1950s to the 1980s, the Soviet Bloc made mockery of amateur status by state-sponsored athletic systems, where chosen athletes were trained and developed on a full-time basis. For example, The Soviet Hockey team trained 10-11 months a year, and the players were given army commissions and pay without army duties - full time pro athletes, and amateur in name only.

As I've said before, that toothpaste is out of the tube now, and the Olympic movement no longer cares if you get paid or not. To win at the international level, you need to be a full time athlete, and you should be compensated for your efforts, as it takes full time dedication to win internationally these days. Weekend athletes are simply not competitive, and I don't want to see our athletes having to work 2 jobs and train just to lose to someone else who doesn't need to work, but just trains and competes.

I also think fans want to see the best athletes compete to see who is really best. If the Olympic ideal is about excellence, I don't want to see some minor league hockey players on the podium as it was in 1992 and 1994, when second-tier pros competed in second rate hockey tournaments, while the best athletes weren't there. Since 1998, The NHL players have raised the level of Olympic Hockey, and several different countries have won gold, showing the depth quality of the game.

Sure the Dream Team won in 1992, but now the USA is in the death struggle to win in Olympic hoops, as the NBA raised the bar, and several countries can win in Olympic hoops.

The IOC is not going back to amateurism, either. It's too hard to enforce, and sponsors and advertisers pay big for the Olympics because it's about associating themselves with the best.
 
Last edited:
Re: The WJC Thread. USA! USA! USA!

FlagDUDE08 said:
Actually, in speaking of that, I think that the Olympics is actually what turned me off of basketball, when the USA lost in the first round-robin game because they weren't taking the game seriously (aside from, I think, Tim Duncan). Unfortunately I think these days some sports have just turned into a forum for parading celebrities, which is why club teams are so popular (they play for money and media exposure), as opposed to international play (where the prize truly is international pride).
Click to expand...

You bring up a very good point whether you knew it or not :D (other than the one that Americans don't take national teams that seriously).

I have no problem with pros in the Olympics. No problems whatsoever. With one exception.

If the Olympics is not the ultimate prize in the sport, then it should not be in the Olympics. Tennis would fall under this category. Any of the Grand Slam events are more important than an Olympic gold medal. Some of the bicycling events as the Tour de France is more important.

Soccer would actually fall under this category because the World Cup is way more important (in fact, FIFA limits the eligibility to play in the Olympics specifically so the Olympic soccer tournament never equals the World Cup).

And, like you, this is why I have a huge problem with golf getting into the Olympics. There is no way any golfer would rather have an Olympic gold medal than a Green Jacket, a US Open win, a British Open win, or a PGA victory. The only reason golf got in was because, in your words, they just wanted to parade celebrities around while the IOC could count the money. And to think they dropped softball (especially when they talk about enhancing women sports) infuriates me even more.
 
Re: The WJC Thread. USA! USA! USA!

dggoddard said:
Troubling stat we all know about during the telecast last night. They mentioned that the USA had 500,000 registered hockey players including 262,000 boys. I think that number is down from over 400,000 boys a decade or two ago. The numbers keep getting masked because of the growth of girls hockey.

So yes the USA elite players are better than ever before and elite youth coaching has never been better, but the talent pool is shrinking at an alarming rate.
Click to expand...

That had to be a misquote.

http://www.usahockey.com/Template_Usahockey.aspx?NAV=PL_07&ID=176314

has 59,500 girls players in 2008-09. They probably meant 462,000.

Stop panicking.
 
Re: The WJC Thread. USA! USA! USA!

Russell Jaslow said:
You bring up a very good point whether you knew it or not :D (other than the one that Americans don't take national teams that seriously).

I have no problem with pros in the Olympics. No problems whatsoever. With one exception.

If the Olympics is not the ultimate prize in the sport, then it should not be in the Olympics. Tennis would fall under this category. Any of the Grand Slam events are more important than an Olympic gold medal. Some of the bicycling events as the Tour de France is more important.

Soccer would actually fall under this category because the World Cup is way more important (in fact, FIFA limits the eligibility to play in the Olympics specifically so the Olympic soccer tournament never equals the World Cup).

And, like you, this is why I have a huge problem with golf getting into the Olympics. There is no way any golfer would rather have an Olympic gold medal than a Green Jacket, a US Open win, a British Open win, or a PGA victory. The only reason golf got in was because, in your words, they just wanted to parade celebrities around while the IOC could count the money. And to think they dropped softball (especially when they talk about enhancing women sports) infuriates me even more.
Click to expand...

You talk about the Olympics being the ultimate prize. Maybe this is where it comes down to how some Olympic sports are becoming glorified all-star games (like Olympic hockey, or Olympic basketball). I think just so long as we remember it's all about team cohesiveness in order to try to say "Our country's the best" and not a guy showing off his Nikes or the CCM hotshot or whatever it may be.

I think this may be a reason why some cities have such a loyal fan-base in certain sports, like Buffalo or Green Bay or other smaller markets. I think one thing that would really help is to feel like, "Hey, they're still just an ordinary American (or whatever nationality), just like any one of us", there's a bigger desire for them to be successful, because it really does feel like "we" are competing against other countries for national pride. I know, this is naive thinking, but I would think that was the whole purpose behind this publicly demonstrated sporting.
 
Re: The WJC Thread. USA! USA! USA!

Puck Swami said:
No. The amateur thing has always been something of a sham even going back to the ancient greeks, who awarded Olympic athletes with huge prizes for Olympic victories.
Click to expand...

The ancient Greeks never defined the Olympics as an amateur event. Amateur is purely a modern concept.

In the early years of the Modern Olympics,(1890s -1930s) amateurism was used to keep the lower classes out of the Games, since only rich folk have the time to train competitiuvely.
Click to expand...

Bingo! And that's something a lot of people don't get. It was a case of descrimination which resulted in the whole idea of the Olympics having to be an amateur event.

And it was solely the British who wanted this. When Pierre de Coubertin wanted to start the Modern Olympics, he knew he had to get the most powerful country in the world at the time -- England -- to buy into the idea. England said sure, sounds like a grand idea. However, we have one demand. We want only amateurs allowed in.

The reason was because the English aristocrats didn't want anything to do with the "common" folks. Mixing with them in sporting competitions was considered unseemly. de Courbertin didn't care, never considered the idea of amateur eligibility, and went along with England's demand in order to get them onboard.

Finally, from the 1950s to the 1980s, the Soviet Bloc made mockery of amateur status by state-sponsored athletic systems, where chosen athletes were trained and developed on a full-time basis. For example, The Soviet Hockey team trained 10-11 months a year, and the players were given army commissions and pay without army duties - full time pro athletes, and amateur in name only.
Click to expand...

Mockery is an understatement. :eek:

What always amazed me during that period was people who actually still defended the assinine "ideal" of amateurism.

As I've said before, that toothpaste is out of the tube now, and the Olympic movement no longer cares if you get paid or not.
Click to expand...

In the 1950s the Sports Car Club of America dealt with this same issue, insisting its members only compete as amateurs, and banning those who went off and did pro races.

Finally, the SCCA gave up this ridiculous stance, and simply said, "The personal finances of our members are none of our business."

The Olympics should have said the same thing a long, long time ago.

I also think fans want to see the best athletes compete to see who is really best. If the Olympic ideal is about excellence, I don't want to see some minor league hockey players on the podium as it was in 1992 and 1994, when second-tier pros competed in second rate hockey tournaments, while the best athletes weren't there. Since 1998, The NHL players have raised the level of Olympic Hockey, and several different countries have won gold, showing the depth quality of the game.
Click to expand...

Absolutely!

Sure the Dream Team won in 1992, but now the USA is in the death struggle to win in Olympic hoops, as the NBA raised the bar, and several countries can win in Olympic hoops.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, squared.
 
Re: The WJC Thread. USA! USA! USA!

FlagDUDE08 said:
You talk about the Olympics being the ultimate prize. Maybe this is where it comes down to how some Olympic sports are becoming glorified all-star games (like Olympic hockey, or Olympic basketball). I think just so long as we remember it's all about team cohesiveness in order to try to say "Our country's the best" and not a guy showing off his Nikes or the CCM hotshot or whatever it may be.

I think this may be a reason why some cities have such a loyal fan-base in certain sports, like Buffalo or Green Bay or other smaller markets. I think one thing that would really help is to feel like, "Hey, they're still just an ordinary American (or whatever nationality), just like any one of us", there's a bigger desire for them to be successful, because it really does feel like "we" are competing against other countries for national pride. I know, this is naive thinking, but I would think that was the whole purpose behind this publicly demonstrated sporting.
Click to expand...

I agree, which is why I have been saying all along that national competition means a lot more in Europe, because they don't have this attitude when they compete for their coutnry. Club sports means a lot more in this country.
 
Re: The WJC Thread. USA! USA! USA!

bronconick said:
That had to be a misquote.

http://www.usahockey.com/Template_Usahockey.aspx?NAV=PL_07&ID=176314

has 59,500 girls players in 2008-09. They probably meant 462,000.

Stop panicking.
Click to expand...
The stats last night on the broadcast showed 112,000 senior players, 260,000 boys and 59,000 girls. Thats around 430,000 plus total players. Boys seem to be losing 20,000-30,000 per year. Who knows where it will be a decade from now.

Take soccer for example. Over 1 million kids play it in Texas alone.

We all know that hockey is expensive and the numbers are declining for boys. Just wanted to point it out.
 
Re: The WJC Thread. USA! USA! USA!

Russell Jaslow said:
I agree, which is why I have been saying all along that national competition means a lot more in Europe, because they don't have this attitude when they compete for their coutnry. Club sports means a lot more in this country.
Click to expand...

Even with club sports, it's not necessarily about one city being better than the other, except the smaller markets where the players really are just regular citizens like all of us. Take the NHL, for example. Do you think most people in DC care about the Capitals as a whole? Probably not. What about Ovechkin? DEFINITELY. Chicago in the 90's, all about Michael Jordan (NBA). That's where you start seeing all those "bandwagoners" as well.
 
Re: The WJC Thread. USA! USA! USA!

FlagDUDE08 said:
Even with club sports, it's not necessarily about one city being better than the other, except the smaller markets where the players really are just regular citizens like all of us. Take the NHL, for example. Do you think most people in DC care about the Capitals as a whole? Probably not. What about Ovechkin? DEFINITELY. Chicago in the 90's, all about Michael Jordan (NBA). That's where you start seeing all those "bandwagoners" as well.
Click to expand...

I hear what you are saying now.

I still think the end result is similar.
 
Re: The WJC Thread. USA! USA! USA!

FlagDUDE08 said:
You talk about the Olympics being the ultimate prize. Maybe this is where it comes down to how some Olympic sports are becoming glorified all-star games (like Olympic hockey, or Olympic basketball).
Click to expand...

This is where there is a contradiction in my belief--when dealing with team sports. Which is more important? An Olympic gold medal or the Stanley Cup? Or, can you not compare the two being one is club, the other national?

When talking about tennis, golf, gymnastics, figure skating, or any other individual sport, the distinction is very easy to make. But I admit, when dealing with team sports, it gets a bit murky.
 
Re: The WJC Thread. USA! USA! USA!

Russell Jaslow said:
This is where there is a contradiction in my belief--when dealing with team sports. Which is more important? An Olympic gold medal or the Stanley Cup? Or, can you not compare the two being one is club, the other national?

When talking about tennis, golf, gymnastics, figure skating, or any other individual sport, the distinction is very easy to make. But I admit, when dealing with team sports, it gets a bit murky.
Click to expand...

Let's also consider that for the NFL and NBA, they call it "World Champions", and of course with MLB the "World Series", when only clubs within the USA (and Canada) are involved, and the sport is played in many other locations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top