There are lots of very valid arguments for both sides of this, but I'll simply conclude by saying that the most compelling hockey in the Olympics was played between the women, a group of amateurs who won't go back to million dollar contracts later this week. That says a lot to me.
- Emperor Filonius

Bingo! That's what it should be. Not who can stack their country's team with the most NHL players. They need to stop letting the NHL players go (due to the liability, mainly) anyway, and let amateurs have a shot at it.

I realize the KHL won't abide, and will still send their best... but at least the NHL can set the precedent.

The NHL went into this thinking they could grow exposure and interest in the game, but there is very little tangible evidence that this has happened or that they get any carryover from the olympics to the NHL. Who is watching weekday games at 7:30 AM but people who are already die hard hockey fans anyways? By shutting down the regular season, the NHL essentially is saying "our own product is inferior/less important than Olympic hockey". Add to this the list of teams that are now going to have players missing due to injury and worn down from the extra games and travel going into the stretch run, further marginalizing the NHL product for season ticket holders like me who paid good money to watch NHL games that are deemed less important than the Olympics. That's just crazy.

People are going to watch Olympic hockey because of two reasons: They are hockey fans already or because they are interested in rooting on their country, just like they would someone on the bobsled or downhill. I doubt very much the average American could pick Sidney Crosby out of a lineup 2 weeks from now, let alone TJ Oshie or Dustin Brown. Would a gold medal mean any less to Canada if it was won by a Junior team plus some first year NHLer's? I doubt it. The NHL would still benefit because it could be selling future stars of the game (Imagine a Crosby led team playing in Torino in 2006 when he was left off a Canadian team populated by established NHL stars).

The NHL SHOULD also re-institute the World Cup of Hockey and play it in late August and early September with NHL stars, without sacrificing any of the season, play it in US and Canadian cities where it is trying to sell the game anyways, and play it in prime time when people are going to watch instead of 7AM when only dedicated hockey fans are going to watch. Football season is still ramping up at that point in the calendar and all but a handful of baseball teams are out of contention by then. This would also allow them to control scheduling and promotion, not the IOC, and allow promotion of the upcoming NHL season. They have the partnership with NBC going for them now, and could play the championship game on Saturday night in prime time on NBC, with round robin games airing on NBCSN. They would also be able to pare down the field to teams that can actually compete and shorten the event to a managable length (CAN, US, FIN, SWE, RUS, SWISS, CZE, SLOVAKIA).

There are lots of very valid arguments for both sides of this, but I'll simply conclude by saying that the most compelling hockey in the Olympics was played between the women, a group of amateurs who won't go back to million dollar contracts later this week. That says a lot to me.
- Emperor Filonius

NBC said that the US/Russia game was the highest rated hockey game they have EVER carried. Higher than any Stanley Cup final and higher than any outdoor game.

Remember when Chicago played Philly in the finals? Two of the three (NY is obviously the biggest) biggest hockey markets in the US, with two of the four biggest fanbases? Ya, that 7am game between the US and Russia had higher ratings than the Weekday/weekend 8pm Stanley Cup finals between two massive hockey markets.

I understand your point, but I think the evidence points to the contrary.

Let's also be clear here. The hockey tournament is the biggest cash cow at the Olympics. It's a week and a half long and it's played to mainly sold out buildings. All events other than hockey/curling are 1-2 days long. The only other event that comes close to making that much money is figure skating (but that's the sum of ALL figure skating events).

Look at what the buildings looked like pre-NHL participation at the Olympics - half-filled until the finals. Look at how empty the buildings are at the world juniors when it's played anywhere but Canada. Empty. It will be a bit more at the Olympics, but not much.

Amateurs don't have the names that NHLers do. They don't have the talent, and it's not even as close to compelling because it's not best on best.

The IOC may have to actually give the NHL monetary compensation, and play the insurance for injured players, but I don't see the IOC, or the NHL being dumb enough to stop the partnership.

As for your argument (and I have heard it before from others), that the NHL participation makes the league look inferior to the Olympics or inferior to other major sports, I agree.

The bottom line is that NHL hockey is inferior! Anyone who argues otherwise is an idiot. Olympic hockey is played between the best players on the planet, while that talent is diluted in the NHL. The NHL can lie to itself all it wants and pretend it's bigger than the Olympics, but it's not and it never will be.

As for it shutting down while none of the other sports do, is silly. Football and baseball aren't in the Olympics, so that's not a comparable. Basketball is in the summer games, while the league plays in the winter, so again, it's not comparable.

As I said, the next Olympics being in Korea is the perfect time for Bettman to hold out and get a better deal for the following games. Korea doesn't have any hockey players, and they don't really care about the sport.

NBC said that the US/Russia game was the highest rated hockey game they have EVER carried. Higher than any Stanley Cup final and higher than any outdoor game.

Remember when Chicago played Philly in the finals? Two of the three (NY is obviously the biggest) biggest hockey markets in the US, with two of the four biggest fanbases? Ya, that 7am game between the US and Russia had higher ratings than the Weekday/weekend 8pm Stanley Cup finals between two massive hockey markets.

I understand your point, but I think the evidence points to the contrary.

Let's also be clear here. The hockey tournament is the biggest cash cow at the Olympics. It's a week and a half long and it's played to mainly sold out buildings. All events other than hockey/curling are 1-2 days long. The only other event that comes close to making that much money is figure skating (but that's the sum of ALL figure skating events).

Look at what the buildings looked like pre-NHL participation at the Olympics - half-filled until the finals. Look at how empty the buildings are at the world juniors when it's played anywhere but Canada. Empty. It will be a bit more at the Olympics, but not much.

Amateurs don't have the names that NHLers do. They don't have the talent, and it's not even as close to compelling because it's not best on best.

The IOC may have to actually give the NHL monetary compensation, and play the insurance for injured players, but I don't see the IOC, or the NHL being dumb enough to stop the partnership.

As for your argument (and I have heard it before from others), that the NHL participation makes the league look inferior to the Olympics or inferior to other major sports, I agree.

The bottom line is that NHL hockey is inferior! Anyone who argues otherwise is an idiot. Olympic hockey is played between the best players on the planet, while that talent is diluted in the NHL. The NHL can lie to itself all it wants and pretend it's bigger than the Olympics, but it's not and it never will be.

As for it shutting down while none of the other sports do, is silly. Football and baseball aren't in the Olympics, so that's not a comparable. Basketball is in the summer games, while the league plays in the winter, so again, it's not comparable.

As I said, the next Olympics being in Korea is the perfect time for Bettman to hold out and get a better deal for the following games. Korea doesn't have any hockey players, and they don't really care about the sport.
- Charliebox

That 7 AM game was during a big snow storm that shut down NYC, Philly and most of the northeastern US. That kind of skews the TV numbers.

Plus, it's the olympics. Many people would watch frisbee toss if it was in the Olympics. I know these people. They would shut off a NHL game between Pittsburgh and Chicago to watch Curling

That 7 AM game was during a big snow storm that shut down NYC, Philly and most of the northeastern US. That kind of skews the TV numbers.

Plus, it's the olympics. Many people would watch frisbee toss if it was in the Olympics. I know these people. They would shut off a NHL game between Pittsburgh and Chicago to watch Curling
- Jsaquella

It was still at 7am on a Saturday morning (4am on the west coast).

You're telling me that people are going to wake up early on a Saturday morning to watch the Frisbee toss?

C'mon man.

I get it. I understand that people love watching the Olympics.. even sports that they would never normally watch. I am one of those people.

That said, I didn't get up early once to watch any event in this Olympics, except hockey.

NBC said that the US/Russia game was the highest rated hockey game they have EVER carried. Higher than any Stanley Cup final and higher than any outdoor game.

Remember when Chicago played Philly in the finals? Two of the three (NY is obviously the biggest) biggest hockey markets in the US, with two of the four biggest fanbases? Ya, that 7am game between the US and Russia had higher ratings than the Weekday/weekend 8pm Stanley Cup finals between two massive hockey markets.

I understand your point, but I think the evidence points to the contrary.

Let's also be clear here. The hockey tournament is the biggest cash cow at the Olympics. It's a week and a half long and it's played to mainly sold out buildings. All events other than hockey/curling are 1-2 days long. The only other event that comes close to making that much money is figure skating (but that's the sum of ALL figure skating events).

Look at what the buildings looked like pre-NHL participation at the Olympics - half-filled until the finals. Look at how empty the buildings are at the world juniors when it's played anywhere but Canada. Empty. It will be a bit more at the Olympics, but not much.

Amateurs don't have the names that NHLers do. They don't have the talent, and it's not even as close to compelling because it's not best on best.

The IOC may have to actually give the NHL monetary compensation, and play the insurance for injured players, but I don't see the IOC, or the NHL being dumb enough to stop the partnership.

As for your argument (and I have heard it before from others), that the NHL participation makes the league look inferior to the Olympics or inferior to other major sports, I agree.

The bottom line is that NHL hockey is inferior! Anyone who argues otherwise is an idiot. Olympic hockey is played between the best players on the planet, while that talent is diluted in the NHL. The NHL can lie to itself all it wants and pretend it's bigger than the Olympics, but it's not and it never will be.

As for it shutting down while none of the other sports do, is silly. Football and baseball aren't in the Olympics, so that's not a comparable. Basketball is in the summer games, while the league plays in the winter, so again, it's not comparable.

As I said, the next Olympics being in Korea is the perfect time for Bettman to hold out and get a better deal for the following games. Korea doesn't have any hockey players, and they don't really care about the sport.
- Charliebox

All fair points, but:

1. What were the ratings for the other games in the preliminary round, or even the bronze? Is shutting down the league for 2 weeks really worth 3 hours of ratings? NBC got the highest rated hockey game ever, but its just one game, versus multiple games in the NHL playoffs.
2. I don't care whether or not buildings are filled at the Olympics and neither should the NHL if they aren't there. If that is truly the case, then the Olympics needs the NHL, not the other way around. Your point about compensating the owners and the NHL has some merit, as money talks, but I still don't believe its worth it. The NHL could make a lot more money by running its own world cup and not have to deal with the ass hats at the IOC.
3. I don't believe in making a 2 week long tournament more important than the entirety of the NHL season, and winning the Stanley Cup, and neither should the NHL. Part of this is all about self fulfilling perception and attitude. As long as the NHL continues to ACT like they have a product that is second fiddle to the Olympics, then that's the way it will stay. Its easy to say Olympic Hockey is better quality, but its really an apples and oranges comparison, as its a short tourney and played with what essentially are All Star teams. The NHL should be focused on promoting its own brand of hockey, which has the capacity to be brilliant when the league actually manages to get out of its own way. Why marginalize that and marginalize your own product which is routinely sold as the toughest championship to win in sports in the Stanley Cup with Olympic gold?

All fair points, but:

1. What were the ratings for the other games in the preliminary round, or even the bronze? Is shutting down the league for 2 weeks really worth 3 hours of ratings? NBC got the highest rated hockey game ever, but its just one game, versus multiple games in the NHL playoffs.
2. I don't care whether or not buildings are filled at the Olympics and neither should the NHL if they aren't there. If that is truly the case, then the Olympics needs the NHL, not the other way around. Your point about compensating the owners and the NHL has some merit, as money talks, but I still don't believe its worth it. The NHL could make a lot more money by running its own world cup and not have to deal with the ass hats at the IOC.
3. I don't believe in making a 2 week long tournament more important than the entirety of the NHL season, and winning the Stanley Cup, and neither should the NHL. Part of this is all about self fulfilling perception and attitude. As long as the NHL continues to ACT like they have a product that is second fiddle to the Olympics, then that's the way it will stay. Its easy to say Olympic Hockey is better quality, but its really an apples and oranges comparison, as its a short tourney and played with what essentially are All Star teams. The NHL should be focused on promoting its own brand of hockey, which has the capacity to be brilliant when the league actually manages to get out of its own way. Why marginalize that and marginalize your own product which is routinely sold as the toughest championship to win in sports in the Stanley Cup with Olympic gold?
- Emperor Filonius

I guess the question at the end of the day is this: Do we want to grow the game or do we want it to stay the way it is.

To me, as a Canadian, I wouldn't care (I would probably rather, actually), if the NHL consisted of 8-10 Canadian teams and 10 American teams (located where you get 'winter'). To me, that would be perfect. Plenty of talent to go around, sold out buildings and a high-profile sport in it's geographic region.

But, Bettman and co want to 'grow the game'. They want to make hockey a 'national' sport in the US. They put teams in non-traditional markets, let the players play to half-filled buildings and let hockey be on page 8 of the local sports section.

Because Bettman has taken that tact and tried to make hockey a national sport in the USA, then, to me, it only makes sense that it's included in the Olympics. Hockey is looking for fans. Hockey needs more fans to make those markets (and even some in the northern US) viable.

Even your own team would have been bankrupt had they not won the lottery to get Sid.

The reason I brought up the ratings for the USA/Russia game wasn't to talk about NBC or the Olympics. It was the bring up the point that obviously more than just diehard fans watched that game. If the ratings were higher than during a Stanley cup final between two massive markets, then the Olympics did a good job of selling hockey as a sport.

Like I said, I would rather option #1 and have 20 solid teams with 20 solid fan bases, but that's just not the reality. The reality is that they want to continue to grow the game. The Olympics is BY FAR the best tool to grow the game. Think of how much people talk about the 'miracle on ice' and the 1980 gold medal win. Imagine what a gold medal for the USA at the Olympics now, with the best on best, would do for hockey in the states.

Nothing else really matters except the Olympics is about the best players playing the sport. Olympic gold is the single highest honor you can receive from playing any sport. Yes a thousand year old tradition is more important than the Stanley cup. It is unfair to not let the best players in the world compete for this prize.

Also I bet the nhl fanbase grew during this competition. Even if a very small percentage, but exposure is the only way to grow the fan base and the Olympics clearly does that.

I don't ever recall caring so little about Olympic hockey as I did this year. There was just something missing....

Nothing else really matters except the Olympics is about the best players playing the sport. Olympic gold is the single highest honor you can receive from playing any sport. Yes a thousand year old tradition is more important than the Stanley cup. It is unfair to not let the best players in the world compete for this prize.

Also I bet the nhl fanbase grew during this competition. Even if a very small percentage, but exposure is the only way to grow the fan base and the Olympics clearly does that.
- FlyersSteve118

The event we know as the Olympics are younger than the Stanley Cup. The true Olympic tradition is also for amateurs to compete, not professionals.

Out of the 4 major sports, hockey has the least amount of casual fans and no matter how many olympics NHL players attend, that will never change. More people watch the Olympic events and then never watch another event in the next 4 years. Very very few carry over and become loyal fans. Is it really worth alienating your core fan base and shutting down in the what is usually the time the season starts heating up for the hope of a handful new fans? Sorry but I don't think it is. Not too mention the politics behind it all. Many players that were not on national teams that deserved to be were left off because of popularity and politics. No different than an all-star game. It hurts the game more than it helps it.

Out of the 4 major sports, hockey has the least amount of casual fans and no matter how many olympics NHL players attend, that will never change. More people watch the Olympic events and then never watch another event in the next 4 years. Very very few carry over and become loyal fans. Is it really worth alienating your core fan base and shutting down in the what is usually the time the season starts heating up for the hope of a handful new fans? Sorry but I don't think it is. Not too mention the politics behind it all. Many players that were not on national teams that deserved to be were left off because of popularity and politics. No different than an all-star game. It hurts the game more than it helps it.
- Daveflyers36

One second.. what core fans are alienated by the Olympics?

I have already detailed how Hasek getting hurt screwed over the Sens, probably more than any team has been screwed since the NHL players went to the Olympics, yet fans we still remain.

Sure, at the time, it sucked. The thing is, I don't know any Sens fan, at the time, or even today, that 'blames' the Olympics or feels (felt) alienated by it all.

Hasek (same with Tavares) could have just as easily been injured playing one of the 82 hockey games in the regular season.

In fact, if we look at man games played vs injuries at the Olympics, I bet it's less than in the NHL.

Hasek went down in 06. Tavares went down this year. That's it. I can't think of any superstars went down in 2010.

Ya know what alienates fans far more than the Olympics?

The existence of the Phoenix Coyotes, Carolina Hurricans, and Florida Panthers.

What alienates fans is revenue sharing and giving the money that we spent on tickets to sad sack franchises that shouldn't exist in the first place.

Agree with your take on the Tavares injury.

Remember what Suter did to Gretzky at the '91 Canada Cup? Gretz was never the same after that.

And we're still pissed at what Suter did to Kariya just prior to the Olympics in '98... the point being deliberately or maliciously keeping the best players off the ice at the Olympics is wrong. Period.

One second.. what core fans are alienated by the Olympics?

I have already detailed how Hasek getting hurt screwed over the Sens, probably more than any team has been screwed since the NHL players went to the Olympics, yet fans we still remain.

Sure, at the time, it sucked. The thing is, I don't know any Sens fan, at the time, or even today, that 'blames' the Olympics or feels (felt) alienated by it all.

Hasek (same with Tavares) could have just as easily been injured playing one of the 82 hockey games in the regular season.

In fact, if we look at man games played vs injuries at the Olympics, I bet it's less than in the NHL.



Hasek went down in 06. Tavares went down this year. That's it. I can't think of any superstars went down in 2010.
- Charliebox

Yes the fans remain but we are put on hold for 3 weeks for what? Every hockey fan knows that February starts the push for the playoffs and the teams that have a chance start to break away from the teams that don't. The teams that are playing good hockey get a total momentum block because of this. Fans have to wait for the season to get started again. Even what casual fans you have( which aren't many) at this point lose interest because the game isn't being played. There is no real gain by shutting down the NHL. It is for the players only.

All fair points, but:

1. What were the ratings for the other games in the preliminary round, or even the bronze? Is shutting down the league for 2 weeks really worth 3 hours of ratings? NBC got the highest rated hockey game ever, but its just one game, versus multiple games in the NHL playoffs.
2. I don't care whether or not buildings are filled at the Olympics and neither should the NHL if they aren't there. If that is truly the case, then the Olympics needs the NHL, not the other way around. Your point about compensating the owners and the NHL has some merit, as money talks, but I still don't believe its worth it. The NHL could make a lot more money by running its own world cup and not have to deal with the ass hats at the IOC.
3. I don't believe in making a 2 week long tournament more important than the entirety of the NHL season, and winning the Stanley Cup, and neither should the NHL. Part of this is all about self fulfilling perception and attitude. As long as the NHL continues to ACT like they have a product that is second fiddle to the Olympics, then that's the way it will stay. Its easy to say Olympic Hockey is better quality, but its really an apples and oranges comparison, as its a short tourney and played with what essentially are All Star teams. The NHL should be focused on promoting its own brand of hockey, which has the capacity to be brilliant when the league actually manages to get out of its own way. Why marginalize that and marginalize your own product which is routinely sold as the toughest championship to win in sports in the Stanley Cup with Olympic gold?
- Emperor Filonius

Baseball was just recently dropped from the summer olympics and never shutdown to allow players from the MLB to play.

The Olympics has a far bigger reach around the world when it comes to growing the sport. It's the biggest sports tournament on the planet and it means more to athletes to win Olympic Gold as opposed to a World Cup. If fairness to the NHL, the NBA doesn't have to shut down to allow their players to go and it's almost impossible for baseball due to the size of their schedule and how condensed it already is without losing games or pushing the schedule into November. If fans and players really enjoyed the World Cup it would already have kept happening.
- thirstyfin

The NHL is Def looking for a "Bigger Reach Around"...

The NHL went into this thinking they could grow exposure and interest in the game, but there is very little tangible evidence that this has happened or that they get any carryover from the olympics to the NHL. Who is watching weekday games at 7:30 AM but people who are already die hard hockey fans anyways? By shutting down the regular season, the NHL essentially is saying "our own product is inferior/less important than Olympic hockey". Add to this the list of teams that are now going to have players missing due to injury and worn down from the extra games and travel going into the stretch run, further marginalizing the NHL product for season ticket holders like me who paid good money to watch NHL games that are deemed less important than the Olympics. That's just crazy.

People are going to watch Olympic hockey because of two reasons: They are hockey fans already or because they are interested in rooting on their country, just like they would someone on the bobsled or downhill. I doubt very much the average American could pick Sidney Crosby out of a lineup 2 weeks from now, let alone TJ Oshie or Dustin Brown. Would a gold medal mean any less to Canada if it was won by a Junior team plus some first year NHLer's? I doubt it. The NHL would still benefit because it could be selling future stars of the game (Imagine a Crosby led team playing in Torino in 2006 when he was left off a Canadian team populated by established NHL stars).

The NHL SHOULD also re-institute the World Cup of Hockey and play it in late August and early September with NHL stars, without sacrificing any of the season, play it in US and Canadian cities where it is trying to sell the game anyways, and play it in prime time when people are going to watch instead of 7AM when only dedicated hockey fans are going to watch. Football season is still ramping up at that point in the calendar and all but a handful of baseball teams are out of contention by then. This would also allow them to control scheduling and promotion, not the IOC, and allow promotion of the upcoming NHL season. They have the partnership with NBC going for them now, and could play the championship game on Saturday night in prime time on NBC, with round robin games airing on NBCSN. They would also be able to pare down the field to teams that can actually compete and shorten the event to a managable length (CAN, US, FIN, SWE, RUS, SWISS, CZE, SLOVAKIA).

There are lots of very valid arguments for both sides of this, but I'll simply conclude by saying that the most compelling hockey in the Olympics was played between the women, a group of amateurs who won't go back to million dollar contracts later this week. That says a lot to me.
- Emperor Filonius

solid post.

NBC said that the US/Russia game was the highest rated hockey game they have EVER carried. Higher than any Stanley Cup final and higher than any outdoor game.

Remember when Chicago played Philly in the finals? Two of the three (NY is obviously the biggest) biggest hockey markets in the US, with two of the four biggest fanbases? Ya, that 7am game between the US and Russia had higher ratings than the Weekday/weekend 8pm Stanley Cup finals between two massive hockey markets.

I understand your point, but I think the evidence points to the contrary.

Let's also be clear here. The hockey tournament is the biggest cash cow at the Olympics. It's a week and a half long and it's played to mainly sold out buildings. All events other than hockey/curling are 1-2 days long. The only other event that comes close to making that much money is figure skating (but that's the sum of ALL figure skating events).

Look at what the buildings looked like pre-NHL participation at the Olympics - half-filled until the finals. Look at how empty the buildings are at the world juniors when it's played anywhere but Canada. Empty. It will be a bit more at the Olympics, but not much.

Amateurs don't have the names that NHLers do. They don't have the talent, and it's not even as close to compelling because it's not best on best.

The IOC may have to actually give the NHL monetary compensation, and play the insurance for injured players, but I don't see the IOC, or the NHL being dumb enough to stop the partnership.

As for your argument (and I have heard it before from others), that the NHL participation makes the league look inferior to the Olympics or inferior to other major sports, I agree.

The bottom line is that NHL hockey is inferior! Anyone who argues otherwise is an idiot. Olympic hockey is played between the best players on the planet, while that talent is diluted in the NHL. The NHL can lie to itself all it wants and pretend it's bigger than the Olympics, but it's not and it never will be.

As for it shutting down while none of the other sports do, is silly. Football and baseball aren't in the Olympics, so that's not a comparable. Basketball is in the summer games, while the league plays in the winter, so again, it's not comparable.

As I said, the next Olympics being in Korea is the perfect time for Bettman to hold out and get a better deal for the following games. Korea doesn't have any hockey players, and they don't really care about the sport.
- Charliebox

Congratulations. All you did was make points about why it is great for the Olympics but offer nothing to prove it is good for the NHL. Baseball until 2012 was a summer olympic sport and baseball never shutdown for its players to participate.

All well and good. In fact, several people at my work got really jacked for the USA-Russia and USA-Canada matchup. You know how many of those people will become avid hockey fans? Zero. It's like curling; it's cool when you have a country to root for, but it's not something where 2 weeks worth of the best on the planet is going to create a huge new fanbase. It doesn't have the appeal to draw in people on an 82-game/year basis.

It's like playoff hockey. I have a few friends who love playoff hockey, but could care less about the regular season. You CAN NOT GROW HOCKEY FANS. The NHL has been trying since the 90s, and it doesn't work. If you like hockey, you're a fan. If you don't like it, you never will. Most people had watched hockey prior to the 1998 Olympics. I'm sure many "non-hockey fans" watched the NHL players for their home teams in the Olympics. And most of those people stopped caring about hockey until 2002. I'm speaking of Americans, as a note.
- jmatchett383

There might be 10 of those kind of people who just watch the olympics for every 1 fan converted, but its worth it for that one. And I disagree that hockey can't grow. There is evidence of growth almost everywhere you look. From AAA youth teams in Florida to the amount of countries that produce talent in the top leagues.

That 7 AM game was during a big snow storm that shut down NYC, Philly and most of the northeastern US. That kind of skews the TV numbers.

Plus, it's the olympics. Many people would watch frisbee toss if it was in the Olympics. I know these people. They would shut off a NHL game between Pittsburgh and Chicago to watch Curling
- Jsaquella

But its still 7AM in a snowstorm vs primetime. And yes, many would watch frisbee toss but that doesn't discount the fans it does create. In addition, if you look at how the Barclays Premier League is run, they market the game internationally and they are consequently the biggest league in the world. I don't think the NHL should turn a blind eye to growing the NHL internationally as there is lots of potential there. If taking two weeks out of a season every four years is an expense then I don't see the harm. The olympics is primarily good for growing hockey, not the NHL, but thats still good for the NHL.

If NHL owners really expect to expand (even just expand in North America) without there being a diminished quality to the game they have to have the game growing in new markets where they can get more good players. Just see the development in Switzerland and Austria and how it is beginning to pay dividends with NHL-caliber players making their way up and out of those countries to play in the NHL. The Olympics are good for the NHL and the 2 weeks of downtime midseason every four years is a small price to pay.

Surely Teemu Selanne values his Stanley Cup. But he just as clearly values the medals he's won for Finland.

As for those who want to go back to the days of amateurs competing, where would you find them? The talent outside of the U.S. is playing at professional levels at home down to age 16.

But its still 7AM in a snowstorm vs primetime. And yes, many would watch frisbee toss but that doesn't discount the fans it does create. In addition, if you look at how the Barclays Premier League is run, they market the game internationally and they are consequently the biggest league in the world. I don't think the NHL should turn a blind eye to growing the NHL internationally as there is lots of potential there. If taking two weeks out of a season every four years is an expense then I don't see the harm. The olympics is primarily good for growing hockey, not the NHL, but thats still good for the NHL.
- rmdevil313

And in Korea, they will be able to play late morning/early afternoon games there and broadcast them prime time in the U.S. east and then west. (11 am and 2 pm becomes 9pm ET and 9 pm PT) Pyeongchang actually works out better for the U.S. tv than Sochi did, not worse (as many reporters without the ability to check time zones on their computers seem to think). It's not unknown to do that. Many swimming events were held in the morning in China so they could be shown live in the Western Hemisphere in prime time.

And in Korea, they will be able to play late morning/early afternoon games there and broadcast them prime time in the U.S. east and then west. (11 am and 2 pm becomes 9pm ET and 9 pm PT) Pyeongchang actually works out better for the U.S. tv than Sochi did, not worse (as many reporters without the ability to check time zones on their computers seem to think). It's not unknown to do that. Many swimming events were held in the morning in China so they could be shown live in the Western Hemisphere in prime time.
- bodiva88

Yeah they've had other events near Korea before and it wasn't a huge issue. I understand the concern for injury and the break argument but I just don't see them outweighing the positives that the olympics brings the NHL. I don't see hockey as able to host its own summer tournament with more popularity than the olympics like soccer can. People forget when making those comparisons is that soccer teams take numerous international breaks during the season to support the game. There is a lot of buildup to the actual tourney itself. It also has a lot of history. Hockey has a ways to go with its international game and as of now the Olympics presents the best option.

Yeah they've had other events near Korea before and it wasn't a huge issue. I understand the concern for injury and the break argument but I just don't see them outweighing the positives that the olympics brings the NHL. I don't see hockey as able to host its own summer tournament with more popularity than the olympics like soccer can. People forget when making those comparisons is that soccer teams take numerous international breaks during the season to support the game. There is a lot of buildup to the actual tourney itself. It also has a lot of history. Hockey has a ways to go with its international game and as of now the Olympics presents the best option.
- rmdevil313

How has the NHL directly benefitted from sending "pros" to the Olympics?

How has the NHL directly benefitted from sending "pros" to the Olympics?
- Daveflyers36

By growing the game of hockey and marketing the league's best players to the widest audience hockey ever gets.