And now Women's Hockey...

[Big RR]

Speaking of sports, I heard this indictment of USA Hockey on nPR a couple of days ago (Sarah Spain is an ESPM sports analyst); it's pretty eye opening:

What's it going to take for the U.S. women's national hockey team to get the respect they deserve - Olympic medals, World Championships, near-record Olympic TV ratings? Well, they've got all that. And they still feel like an afterthought to their own federation, USA Hockey. Last week, the team announced plans to boycott the upcoming World Championships happening right on home soil in Plymouth, Mich., if progress wasn't made toward a labor agreement. The team's demands are threefold - more financial support in the years leading up to Olympic years, more substantial development for the girls and women's game and better promotion and marketing. USA Hockey's stated mission is to grow the game. But I'm starting to wonder - which game?

Right now, women's national team players receive just a thousand dollars a month for one six-month period every four years leading up to the Olympics from their federation. Compare that to the three and a half million dollars a year USA Hockey spends on boys' youth level development. And there's no comparable development program for girls. While youth boys are funded to play as many as 60 games per year, the highest adult level for women - the national team - gets only nine games in non-Olympic years. And superstar forward Hilary Knight says when they do play, promotion by USA Hockey is so poor, many fans don't even know some of the world's best players are playing in their city.

And then there was this moment. In 2014, when USA Hockey announced the uniforms for the men's and women's teams in Sochi, they didn't invite anyone from the women's team for the public unveiling. They had to watch on TV. Worse, the stitching on both the men's and women's jerseys listed all of Team USA's gold medal-winning teams, but just the men's. The women's gold medal-winning Nagano team was left out. In sports media, there are a lot of fawning essays written on the sacrifices made by male pro athletes. You know the ones - he took a pay cut for a chance to win. He's in it for the love of the game.

A man making a few million less per year should not be the gold standard for love of the game when these women, the very best in the world, are working multiple jobs year round, often buying their own equipment so they can continue representing the red, white and blue. There is incredible growth potential in girls' and women's hockey. The federation's failure to capitalize on that is a disgrace. The national team is merely asking to be supported and acknowledged for the time and work it takes to be great, so great they've won three straight world championships. And if USA Hockey doesn't act quickly, there won't be a U.S. team on the ice in Plymouth to try to make it four.

and last I heard, it appears that the US women's team will boycott the games. For a team that has an Olympic Gold medal and all those world championships, the governing body is treating them pretty lousy.

[Lord Jim]

Yeah, they do seem to be getting the Rodney Dangerfield treatment...

But they'd probably be getting a lot more attention and funding if they had followed the suggestion I made during the last Winter Olympics:

So we turned on the telly early in the AM here, and we've been watching the epic Women's Ice Hockey match-up between Canada and Switzerland...

At the moment the Moosehead Swillers are beating the Cuckoo Clock Makers 2-0....

This is actually the first time I've ever seen a women's ice hockey competition...

And I have to say, the speed and level of physicality is pretty much on a par with real men's ice hockey...

Though I have to say when it comes to Olympic female competition, I still prefer Beach Volleyball...

Would it be out of line to ask that the women hockey players play in bikinis?

[BoSoxGal]

[Bicycle Bill]

Well, a couple of years ago the Colombian women's cycling team unveiled their team outfits —



but it didn't seem to help.

-"BB"-

[oldr_n_wsr]

Until there are loads of money to be made, womens sports will be what they are.
Even bikini football was not very popular.
Better avenue for success is women playing in the "mens" leagues.
There are some very good women basketball players. Don't know how they would stand up against NBA talent, but it might be a start.

[Big RR]

True, but this is supposedly amateur sports, not professional. And it seems to me that the governing body is completely ignoring a team that has consistently excelled. It's not like they're asking for a lot, just recognition and promotion of their achievements, the number sponsored games to at least approach those of pee wee hockey, and some additional funding (so they don't have to work 3 jobs and buy their own equipment). It is pretty disheartening to consistently achieve on the world stage, and then be disrespected by the governing body that is supposed to be looking out for you. I hate to think that they won't defend their world championship on US soil, but I think USA Hockey has left them no other alternative

It's a pretty good example of why we still need Title IX to assure women's opportunities in high school and collegiate athletics.

[Guinevere]

Good for them. Go get 'em, ladies.

Not just Title IX BigRR, but equal pay for the same work.

[Big RR]

Oh, I certainly agree with equal pay, but I am not even sure if these athletes are paid or not; indeed, whether thye can be paid or not depends on the particular governing organization's rules (and what ways around them are attempted or actually work).

[rubato]

There are more frisbee golf players than women's hockey players. And the reason the US women win so often is that the level of play internatinally is very low. If it weren't for Canada it would not be competitive at all. All of the world championships have been one or the other. The sport should be kicked out of the olympics until there is real competition, in 10 or 20 years, unless it disappears due to ennui.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IIHF_Worl ... mpionships

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

... rant continues ....


Women's CURLING is a bigger international sport and 10 different countries have won the world championships.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Cur ... mpionships


You don't hear THEM whining about more money. Do You? No, they just drink their beer and get back on their show machines and drive home.

yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

Certainly there is room for women's hockey in a set of games that include things as varied as curling, race walking, biathalon, handball, men's field hockey, canoeing on a fake set of rapids, a multitude of different sailing events, ...

I don't follow it closely, but there was some pretty good competition at the last Olympics from both Canada and Japan, as well as some of the others. It might not be the most highly contested sport in the world, but it is still contested and watched; the mere fact that a number of countries field teams and send them to the Olympics and the World Championships is pretty good evidence of the viability of the sport and its broad based appeal. Face it, only the US and a few other teams are serious contenders for women's gymnastics, or men's basketball, should w drop them from the Olympics as well?

As for money, I guess you think thee women's hockey team has enough and should stop complaining; I'm more likely to give their opinions a little more credence than yours since they are closer to it than you are.

[Gob]

Over here they've taken to playing women's cricket matches before important games.

Not a good thing as it damages the wicket.

Oh, and having watched women's matches on TV, you wouldn't get me paying good money to see them live.

[Lord Jim]

Oh, and having watched women's matches on TV, you wouldn't get me paying good money to see them live.

Why? Can't they stand around and do nothing just as well as the men?

[Gob]

Fuck. Off.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Over here they've taken to playing women's cricket matches before important games.

Not a good thing as it damages the wicket.

Oh, and having watched women's matches on TV, you wouldn't get me paying good money to see them live.

It's a tough one. If you mean that the women's teams are not as "good" at the game as professional male sportspersons, then that's so but so what?

Women are not as "good" as men at tennis or athletics either but their competitions are well worth watching. It's womano a womano and what the men do is not relevant to that. Women develop excellent skills in sports. Team games, not so much. Given times, perhaps that might change though I doubt it.

Even so, the US Women's Soccer team has been a pleasure in past competitions - the level of play in the final stages of international games is high given two teams of roughly equal skill. That no women's team could ever hope to stay on the field against the men of Bayern Munich, or Barcelona, or Real Madrid, or Tottenham Hotspur has nothing to do with that.

It's at the club level that women's cricket, football and rugby (the latter of which should never be supported or watched) suffers. Pro men's teams can get together a squad of well-skilled players. Watching women's college soccer (from whence the pro teams might come) is like watching 10 year old children playing. It's fun if you are related to a player or you have a free ticket or are a screaming teen (girl). Mind, watching men's college soccer can be painful too.

Women are tough (you wouldn't catch a man giving birth or staying out of bed with a head cold ) but with the exception of one or two freaks (or actual men like Caster Semenya), the fact remains that they are not built to achieve at the same level - the "fastest" person in the world at cycling will always be a man; best at soccer - a man; etc. But that doesn't mean watching a woman's cycle race (for example) is not worthwhile; not at all.

It's not prejudice; it's physiology

[Gob]

[quote="MajGenl.Meade"
It's a tough one. If you mean that the women's teams are not as "good" at the game as professional male sportspersons, then that's so but so what?
[/quote]


People pay to see sport done at its highest levels, not amateurishly.

[Burning Petard]

"People pay to see sport done at its highest levels, not amateurishly."

Huh? Why do people pay to see high school sports competition? Why do people pay to see auto races on little dirt tracks on Friday or Saturday all around the USofA with cars built with the hands of friends and family and driven by one who has no prayer of even winning enough prize money to pay bare expenses and if they are hurt they are gonna lose pay at their day job? Why do people pay to see AA baseball? Lots of tickets are sold to see lots of sports done at much less than it highest levels. In my head it to see more ordinary people doing their best with less than superior talent at an activity that is very difficult to do at any level.

snailgate

[Gob]

We're talking about funding wages for players commensurate with the male pay though.

Happy as I am to pay $120 to see Aus vs NZ in cricket, or one of the forms of rugby, I wouldn't pay you $10 to watch the women's teams play.

[Guinevere]

[quote="MajGenl.Meade"
It's a tough one. If you mean that the women's teams are not as "good" at the game as professional male sportspersons, then that's so but so what?

People pay to see sport done at its highest levels, not amateurishly.[/quote]

That is simply a man's view of the world, which is incredibly insulting to women athletes -- that at their best they can't be any better than "amateur."

Luckily, in the 21st-century, you males don't have all the power, and you certainly don't have all of the spending power. I'll vote with my wallet, thank you very much.

[Jarlaxle]

[quote="MajGenl.Meade"
It's a tough one. If you mean that the women's teams are not as "good" at the game as professional male sportspersons, then that's so but so what?

People pay to see sport done at its highest levels, not amateurishly.

That is simply a man's view of the world, which is incredibly insulting to women athletes -- that at their best they can't be any better than "amateur."

Luckily, in the 21st-century, you males don't have all the power, and you certainly don't have all of the spending power. I'll vote with my wallet, thank you very much.[/quote]
Would you pay the same to watch women's hockey that you would pay for tickets to the Bruins? Be honest.