Olympics: Bettman hints NHL won't play in 2018 and 2022

[Vicente]

I can't understand the problem at all that the NHL has with the Olympics.

For players it's a great opportunity to represent their national teams in a best-on-best tournament in one of the biggest events in all of sports which has a long history and tradition.

For many fans its a nice chance to see their favourite players outside of NHL.

And I also think it serves as a tool of promotion for hockey in general but also for the NHL. Especially if a national team with mostly NHL players wins.

 

[JackSlater]

The IIHF actually promoted the Canada Cup in exchange for certain benefits, including the participation of NHL players in the World Championships. The IIHF has no jurisdiction in such matters, but they will do anything to line their pockets with money. I fully expect that the IIHF would offer some kind of endorsement for the World Cup in exchange for benefits, but the one thing they won't do is call it a World Championship.

From the IIHF website:

"The 1976 Canada Cup proved that Canada had the best team, but like the wakeup call in 1972, it also proved there were several other nations close to the top or able to beat Canada on any particular day. The 1976 Canada Cup was the maturation of international hockey, the event that took international hockey out of a “European†context and into a global context of best on best, the winners crowned, in one sense, true world’s champions."

I agree that they won't suddenly change the tournament's name. Fortunately, the content of a tournament is far more important than what it is called. The IIHF calling it a world championship is completely irrelevant as to whether or not it is best on best hockey though.

 

[BPD Habs Fan]

Don't kid yourself, the khl won't have any more viewers because of an NHL less Olympics. The NHL is watched Worldwide and it barely gains anything from an Olympics in terms of new fans. Rephrase it correctly. it's a better opportunity because it's the only way Russia can win in the Olympics. And even that, who in the sporting World would value Olympic Hockey without the NHL? It's probably a number multiplied by 0, the players that will be there certainly don't deserve the honor of being in the Olympics and being called an Olympian. They are not the best of the best which is what the Olympics is. Might as well make it a under 23 like fifa, at least you get the best prospects.

I remember a time before professionals went to the Olympics and to be honest I preferred it. If I want to see these guys play I can watch the NHL and the fan in me would like to see both going at the same time so there is more hockey for me to watch.

If I remember correctly there is some type of financial agreement between the league and IIHF. This is just Gary posturing so they pony up more money.

 

[1Gold Standard]

I remember a time before professionals went to the Olympics and to be honest I preferred it. If I want to see these guys play I can watch the NHL and the fan in me would like to see both going at the same time so there is more hockey for me to watch.

If I remember correctly there is some type of financial agreement between the league and IIHF. This is just Gary posturing so they pony up more money.

The NHL derives no direct economic or financial benefits from Olympic participation.
IOC/IIHF paid for insurance costs on player contracts.

 

[Yakushev72]

From the IIHF website:

"The 1976 Canada Cup proved that Canada had the best team, but like the wakeup call in 1972, it also proved there were several other nations close to the top or able to beat Canada on any particular day. The 1976 Canada Cup was the maturation of international hockey, the event that took international hockey out of a “European†context and into a global context of best on best, the winners crowned, in one sense, true world’s champions."

I agree that they won't suddenly change the tournament's name. Fortunately, the content of a tournament is far more important than what it is called. The IIHF calling it a world championship is completely irrelevant as to whether or not it is best on best hockey though.

Its interesting that many Canadian posters will not accept the legitimacy of the title "World Champion" because they say that Canada sends a B team to the WC, but then refuse to acknowledge that the Soviets brought a B team to the 1976 Canada Cup, missing most of their best players - such as Kharlamov, Yakushev, Petrov, Mikhailov, Shadrin, Blinov, Kuzkin, Luchenko, Gusev and a number of other A teamers. I have to believe that the IIHF was either referring to the 1976 Canada Cup on its own merits, or they are even dumber and more incompetent than I thought.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

Its interesting that many Canadian posters will not accept the legitimacy of the title "World Champion" because they say that Canada sends a B team to the WC, but then refuse to acknowledge that the Soviets brought a B team to the 1976 Canada Cup, missing most of their best players - such as Kharlamov, Yakushev, Petrov, Mikhailov, Shadrin, Blinov, Kuzkin, Luchenko, Gusev and a number of other A teamers. I have to believe that the IIHF was either referring to the 1976 Canada Cup on its own merits, or they are even dumber and more incompetent than I thought.

Difference is the USSR could have brought anyone they wanted to to the 1976 Canada Cup. They simply chose not to.

 

[Yakushev72]

Difference is the USSR could have brought anyone they wanted to to the 1976 Canada Cup. They simply chose not to.

Clearly, the Soviets considered it to be a summer exhibition series that gave them the opportunity to check out some young prospects in international competition. The fact that they chose to send young, inexperienced guys with potential for the future rather than their top international players doesn't negate the fact that it wasn't a best on best competition if competition that was equal to Canada didn't attend. You can't call it a best on best unless you do it under the format of a legitimate World Championship that will draw the best players and teams.

 

[JackSlater]

Its interesting that many Canadian posters will not accept the legitimacy of the title "World Champion" because they say that Canada sends a B team to the WC, but then refuse to acknowledge that the Soviets brought a B team to the 1976 Canada Cup, missing most of their best players - such as Kharlamov, Yakushev, Petrov, Mikhailov, Shadrin, Blinov, Kuzkin, Luchenko, Gusev and a number of other A teamers. I have to believe that the IIHF was either referring to the 1976 Canada Cup on its own merits, or they are even dumber and more incompetent than I thought.

The issue with the World Championship is that every country sends a team far from their best, but also even more importantly that it basically boils down to the B teams of some countries vs the C teams of other countries vs possibly the D teams of others. It becomes irrelevant. I do agree with you, however, about the 1976 Canada Cup and the Soviet team. There is no question that it was lacking several of the best Soviet players, and to pretend otherwise is quite disingenuous.

 

[1Gold Standard]

The issue with the World Championship is that every country sends a team far from their best, but also even more importantly that it basically boils down to the B teams of some countries vs the C teams of other countries vs possibly the D teams of others. It becomes irrelevant. I do agree with you, however, about the 1976 Canada Cup and the Soviet team. There is no question that it was lacking several of the best Soviet players, and to pretend otherwise is quite disingenuous.

nobody is pretending anything...however, The Soviets can call the 1976 Canada Cup a peanut sandwich for all I care, that doesn't change a thing. The fact is each country had equal and fair opportunity to ice its best team ergo Best on Best. now what one federation decides to do after that is completely besides the point. I say so what and who cares that the Soviets left a half dozen of their A team players off the roster. That doesn't change the status of the Canada Cup as a best on best tournament.

 

[JackSlater]

[/B]

nobody is pretending anything...however, The Soviets can call the 1976 Canada Cup a peanut sandwich for all I care, that doesn't change a thing. The fact is each country had equal and fair opportunity to ice its best team ergo Best on Best. now what one federation decides to do after that is completely besides the point. I say so what and who cares that the Soviets left a half dozen of their A team players off the roster. That doesn't change the status of the Canada Cup as a best on best tournament.

Ehh it's a tricky situation. Of course they had the option to send their best team (not Kharlamov as he was injured) but they chose not to. That hurts the tournament to some degree. I think of the 1976 Canada Cup as a win for Canada, but not really at the expense of USSR.

 

[1Gold Standard]

Ehh it's a tricky situation. Of course they had the option to send their best team (not Kharlamov as he was injured) but they chose not to. That hurts the tournament to some degree. I think of the 1976 Canada Cup as a win for Canada, but not really at the expense of USSR.

everybody had a player or 2 missing due to injury. it doesn't change anything

as for the other big names they left off the team...they weren't left behind in 74 when they took on the lesser lights of the WHA...so conveniently leaving them off the roster in 76, whatever their motivation was for doing that, doesn't invoke any sympathy from me... It was their choice. It doesn't change anything from my perspective.

 

[JackSlater]

everybody had a player or 2 missing due to injury. it doesn't change anything

as for the other big names they left off the team...they weren't left behind in 74 when they took on the lesser lights of the WHA...so conveniently leaving them off the roster in 76, whatever their motivation was for doing that, doesn't invoke any sympathy from me... It was their choice. It doesn't change anything from my perspective.

It's not a player or two missing, it's nearly half of their team, including the best players. It doesn't really matter why they left them at home, the reality is that Canada didn't face their best in that tournament. If the KHL hosts a tournament and the European teams send their best while Canada sends a team without a big chunk of the best players, most of us would have clear problems with the view it would paint regarding Canada. It's really a very similar argument to the annual discussion regarding the World Championships. Unfortunately Canada never sends a team remotely close to the best possible, even when most of the players are available. That's what the USSR did in 1976.

 

[1Gold Standard]

It's not a player or two missing, it's nearly half of their team, including the best players. It doesn't really matter why they left them at home, the reality is that Canada didn't face their best in that tournament. If the KHL hosts a tournament and the European teams send their best while Canada sends a team without a big chunk of the best players, most of us would have clear problems with the view it would paint regarding Canada. It's really a very similar argument to the annual discussion regarding the World Championships. Unfortunately Canada never sends a team remotely close to the best possible, even when most of the players are available. That's what the USSR did in 1976.

Jack, exactly !! And specifically the view re: Canada and Canada alone, not anything else. If the KHL held a tournament and Hockey Canada had fair and equal opportunity to ice our best team, but simply chose not to, my issue is not with the tournament or what to call it, my issue would be solely with Hockey Canada. As I said previously, the Russians can view the Canada Cup tournaments however they want and call it whatever they want, it is irrelevant... the only argument that is applicable here, they had fair and equal opportunity to send their best, they chose not to and everything else beyond that is just noise. I really don't care.

 

[JackSlater]

Jack, exactly !! And specifically the view re: Canada and Canada alone, not anything else. If the KHL held a tournament and Hockey Canada had fair and equal opportunity to ice our best team, but simply chose not to, my issue is not with the tournament or what to call it, my issue would be solely with Hockey Canada. As I said previously, the Russians can view the Canada Cup tournaments however they want and call it whatever they want, it is irrelevant... the only argument that is applicable here, they had fair and equal opportunity to send their best, they chose not to and everything else beyond that is just noise. I really don't care.

I agree that it isn't the fault of the tournament that USSR didn't send their best team. That isn't a Canada Cup issue.

 

[Yakushev72]

everybody had a player or 2 missing due to injury. it doesn't change anything

as for the other big names they left off the team...they weren't left behind in 74 when they took on the lesser lights of the WHA...so conveniently leaving them off the roster in 76, whatever their motivation was for doing that, doesn't invoke any sympathy from me... It was their choice. It doesn't change anything from my perspective.

1976 was the first Canada Cup, and I suspect Soviet hockey brass treated it as more of a summer invitational than they did later, although they always juggled the lineup, and never really sent as strong a team to the Canada Cup as they did to the World Championships. They had to win World Championships to keep their jobs, but they really didn't have to win Canada Cups.

Canada Cups could be used as a proving ground for young players without sacrificing a World Championship or Olympic Gold Medal. The 1981, 84 and 87 teams were national teams that had nearly all of the best players, but by 1991, partially because some of the best players refused to play, the Soviets were back to using kids again. The 1991 team actually tied Canada, which is pretty amazing when you look at the B/C team level players who were on the team.

 

[Yakushev72]

Jack, exactly !! And specifically the view re: Canada and Canada alone, not anything else. If the KHL held a tournament and Hockey Canada had fair and equal opportunity to ice our best team, but simply chose not to, my issue is not with the tournament or what to call it, my issue would be solely with Hockey Canada. As I said previously, the Russians can view the Canada Cup tournaments however they want and call it whatever they want, it is irrelevant... the only argument that is applicable here, they had fair and equal opportunity to send their best, they chose not to and everything else beyond that is just noise. I really don't care.

But that's not Jack's point. His point is that if the best players aren't there, for whatever reason, then you can't say the best beat the best. You can't logically say that the 1976 CC met the mythical "best on best" criteria, and at the same time, say that the World Champions aren't real World Champions. After all, if Canada's best players choose not to go, then that should make the winner of the annual WC the real World Champions, according to your logic.

 

[Mr Kanadensisk]

But that's not Jack's point. His point is that if the best players aren't there, for whatever reason, then you can't say the best beat the best. You can't logically say that the 1976 CC met the mythical "best on best" criteria, and at the same time, say that the World Champions aren't real World Champions. After all, if Canada's best players choose not to go, then that should make the winner of the annual WC the real World Champions, according to your logic.

In any given tournament a huge number of the best players are sitting at home on their couch because the country they come from can only ice one team, so I'm not sure you can call any tournament a real best on best. I really don't get the nostalgia people like you have for any of the soviet era teams. In the ultimate team sport they had practically a full time national team going up against groups of guys who had very little, if any, experience playing together. Even with that they still weren't good enough to win any of the major tournaments, save for one time. Sorry, I'm just not that impressed and furthermore don't really see what the 1976 soviet roster choices has to do with the next two Olympics.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

As someone completely unbiased it seems painfully obvious that in this situation the Canada Cup did not determine the world's best. Period. Anyone arguing otherwise likely is doing so out of understandable frustration and bias

 

[JackSlater]

As someone completely unbiased it seems painfully obvious that in this situation the Canada Cup did not determine the world's best. Period. Anyone arguing otherwise likely is doing so out of understandable frustration and bias

No tournament can determine the world's best. A tournament can only produce a winner.

 

[habsrule4eva3089]

No tournament can determine the world's best. A tournament can only produce a winner.

Correct in a way, but in the present day tell that to German Football fans, Indian Cricket fans, New Zealand Rugby supporters and majority if not all Canadian Hockey fans and they'll chuckle.

Winning the World Cup whether of Football, Cricket, Rugby and or the Olympics in Ice Hockey, does and should give a sense of superiority to the winning nation and rightfully they can be titled the World's best. Nothing can take that away, nor should it be taken away. No point in indulging in the main International competition if you can't acclaim yourself as the World's best in whichever sport.

 

[JackSlater]

Winning the World Cup whether of Football, Cricket, Rugby and or the Olympics in Ice Hockey, does and should give a sense of superiority to the winning nation and rightfully they can be titled the World's best. Nothing can take that away, nor should it be taken away. No point in indulging in the main International competition if you can't acclaim yourself as the World's best in whichever sport.

Those are all nice opinions that you have, but there isn't anything to support it. Tournaments can be fun/interesting, but there's no magical property in a tournament that indicates what team (better yet nation) is best at a given sport. That's a topic for a different thread though.

 

[1Gold Standard]

As someone completely unbiased it seems painfully obvious that in this situation the Canada Cup did not determine the world's best. Period. Anyone arguing otherwise likely is doing so out of understandable frustration and bias

Ya, let's just go by what our assumptions are of what something is or isn't...never mind the opinion of elite, best of the best, ultra-competitive alpha male athletes.

 

[Canuckistani]

1976 was the first Canada Cup, and I suspect Soviet hockey brass treated it as more of a summer invitational than they did later

My understanding is that the weak Soviet lineup in 1976 had to do with internal politics. Apparently the old guard (led by Kulagin) didn't want new coach Viktor Tikhonov to win and sabotaged his changes by withholding the likes of Mikhailov, Petrov, Yakushev, Anissin, Shadrin and Tsygankov.

Other explanations range from the players being tired, to the Soviets being afraid to lose after their defeat at the 1976 Worlds.

although they always juggled the lineup, and never really sent as strong a team to the Canada Cup as they did to the World Championships.

The Soviet squads in 1981, 1984 and 1987 looked pretty top-notch. Few notables missing. By 1991 the Soviet team was riddled with internal problems and player defections, leading to their second sub-level squad. Even so, they outplayed a strong Team USA in Chicago, losing 2-1, and tied Canada 3-3.

 

[Yakushev72]

In any given tournament a huge number of the best players are sitting at home on their couch because the country they come from can only ice one team, so I'm not sure you can call any tournament a real best on best. I really don't get the nostalgia people like you have for any of the soviet era teams. In the ultimate team sport they had practically a full time national team going up against groups of guys who had very little, if any, experience playing together. Even with that they still weren't good enough to win any of the major tournaments, save for one time. Sorry, I'm just not that impressed and furthermore don't really see what the 1976 soviet roster choices has to do with the next two Olympics.

You and I have debated this point 100 times in the past, but here we go again. First, you are 100% incorrect in saying that the Soviet team practiced together as a national team 12 months a year. The vast majority of the year they played with their club teams, with a 50-game schedule that involved road trips that were as long or longer than Boston to LA road trips. There were typically 5 or 6 club teams represented on the national team. The schedule was suspended at various times of the year to participate in international tournaments, but it is a clichéd stereotype to say that the Soviets were like robots who practiced together all year - its just not true!

Secondly, the implication of your false premise is that the only reason that the Soviets were the peers of the best Canadians is that they practiced longer and harder and were in better condition. Let me ask you this, even though I don't skate very often, do you believe that if I practiced 10 months a year and Mario Lemieux or Sidney Crosby only practiced 8 months, that within 5 years I would be superior to and dominant over Crosby and a young Lemieux?? Your argument suggests that I would score over 100 goals in the NHL if I just practiced 2 months longer than they did. I wonder how that would work out in the real world?

 

[Yakushev72]

My understanding is that the weak Soviet lineup in 1976 had to do with internal politics. Apparently the old guard (led by Kulagin) didn't want new coach Viktor Tikhonov to win and sabotaged his changes by withholding the likes of Mikhailov, Petrov, Yakushev, Anissin, Shadrin and Tsygankov.

Other explanations range from the players being tired, to the Soviets being afraid to lose after their defeat at the 1976 Worlds.



The Soviet squads in 1981, 1984 and 1987 looked pretty top-notch. Few notables missing. By 1991 the Soviet team was riddled with internal problems and player defections, leading to their second sub-level squad. Even so, they outplayed a strong Team USA in Chicago, losing 2-1, and tied Canada 3-3.

I agree with much of what you say.