The NHL gains more than it loses when players participate in the Olympics

[kdb209]

The 1980 Olympics did more to grow the sport in America at the grass roots than anything the NHL has ever done. Numbers at the youth levels skyrocketed after the USA won gold.

No, actually they didn't.

The biggest growth in hockey participation took place in the early-mid 90's, over a decade after Lake Placid - not uncoincidentally after the first round of NHL expansion in the 90's.

The growth was ~40% from 1980-1990, and then it more than doubled in 7 years.

http://proicehockey.about.com/cs/miracleonice/a/miracle_legacy.htm

In 1980, there were 10,490 hockey teams in the United States. In 1990, the total was up to 14,969. Then the game really took off. By 1997, USA Hockey had registered 29,479 teams and 449,168 players. Those numbers have since continued to rise.

The fact that the 1990s were the greatest period of growth for American hockey suggests that the 1980 Olympics did not inspire thousands of kids to strap on the blades right away. But the event certainly took its place in American sports mythology, giving young hockey players a heritage to celebrate and icons to look up to. That kind of legacy is the lifeblood of any sport.

USA Hockey registration numbers (1990-date) showing the boom in the early-mid 90's:

http://www.usahockey.com/page/show/839306-membership-statistics

Year   	Players   	Coaches   	Officials   	Total  
2012-2013 	510,279 	56,836 	24,303 	591,418
2011-2012 	511,178 	58,825 	24,956 	594,959
2010-2011 	500,579 	56,358 	26,325 	583,262
2009-2010 	474,592 	55,460 	28,424 	558,476
2008-2009 	465,975 	55,448 	26,866 	548,289
2007-2008 	468,202 	54,302 	26,047 	548,551
2006-2007 	457,038 	56,383 	25,978 	539,399
2005-2006 	442,077 	58,593 	26,599 	527,269
2004-2005 	445,245 	59,957 	26,648 	531,850
2003-2004 	449,610 	59,508 	26,321 	535,439
2002-2003 	446,328 	57,595 	26,445 	530,368
2001-2002   	442,725 	57,321 	25,327 	525,373
2000-2001   	439,140 	56,170 	24,223 	519,533
1999-2000   	434,678 	55,378 	23,724 	513,780
1998-1999   	421,399 	53,638 	21,491 	496,528
1997-1998   	401,218 	50,515 	20,529 	472,262
1996-1997   	384,779 	46,511 	19,071 	450,361
1995-1996   	368,402 	43,654 	16,422 	428,478
1994-1995   	350,007 	38,688 	13,838 	402,533
1993-1994   	303,611 	30,985 	12,418 	347,014
1992-1993   	262,873 	23,057 	11,788 	297,718
1991-1992   	230,201 	N/A   	11,280 	241,481
1990-1991   	195,125 	N/A   	10,316 	205,441

 

[Osprey]

Ratings figures for the U.S./Canada game are irrelevant to the subject of whether the Olympics creates an interest in the NHL. My next point is apparently very difficult for NHL fans to grasp: There are many people who only watch hockey during the Olympics because it is tied to patriotism and waving the flag, they aren't actually enjoying the hockey itself. Hockey itself has zero meaning to them. And thus when the Olympics are over they forget hockey exists and never think about it again until the next Olympics when it is once again tied to patriotism which is the only way you can get these people to watch hockey. It isn't so impossible to imagine that there are hundreds of millions of people worldwide who just don't find hockey entertaining. Therefore, this incessant "grow the game" talk comes across as being quite naive and arrogant.

There's nothing arrogant in talking about "growing the game." If it looks that way to you, perhaps it's you. Considering that you've written, in this thread, "If you seriously think... you are kidding yourself" and, especially, "My next point is apparently very difficult for NHL fans to grasp," it seems that, to be honest, the problem of arrogance is more on your own end and you're trying to project it on others, instead. The way that we see others often says more about us than it does about them, after all.

As for naivete, what you're critiquing seems no worse than your suggestion that the game can't be grown because there are "hundreds of millions of people worldwide who just don't find hockey entertaining." You're splitting the entire world population into two categories: those who like and follow hockey and those who will never like and follow it. Making such a black and white argument is what's incredibly naive. There are countless people who will never like or follow hockey, but there are also countless many in the grey area who might like it if they were properly exposed and might be turned into fans. To suggest that everyone who might like hockey already does and everyone else must not like hockey and can't be converted is even worse than naivete.

You may answer that that's not what you were suggesting, but look at what you posted and you can see that it boils down to (paraphrasing) "hundreds of millions of people just don't find hockey entertaining; therefore, talking about growing the game is quite naive." If you acknowledge that there are people out there who don't follow hockey, but who might be turned into fans, then what was the whole point of emphasizing the hopeless causes and saying that the game can't be grown? It can be grown... not via the hopeless causes, obviously, but via the rest. It's not naive to think that; it's naive to think that there's no room left to grow.

 

[sandysan]

You make me so embarrassed as a North American.

Europeans reading this, please do not let the ignorant opinions of this one person cloud how you perceive us. This guy clearly has not bothered watching any European hockey whatsoever.

I went to the Juniors in Malmo, Sweden this past holiday. Best hockey tournament I have ever been to, and I also went to the 2009 World Juniors in Ottawa. Had more fun in Sweden, fans were more intelligent about the game, the place was an absolute party and I had a helluva time.

Personally I have been MORE than impressed by the rate of growth in the KHL and other European leagues. Hell the German DEL looks like one of the most fun hockey leagues on the planet. Like look at this Berlin Eisbaren game!! How can you not be impressed by the fans?! Talent will follow (is following).

I'm a big fan of the juniors because I consider it the best on best with an age cap. its the one thing the IIHF does well.

Fans being more knowledgable about the game does not put lipstick on that pig. You can enjoy the world championships, I dont care, some people enjoy jersey shore.

but to suggest that the world championships are not, at best, a third rate spectacle designed so that the IIHF can flip off the NHL is nonsense.

fun knowledgable and any other reason includeing the party atmosphere to make it worth your time doesnt change the fact that the talent of the hockey is not world class.

 

[FuriousSenator]

I'm a big fan of the juniors because I consider it the best on best with an age cap. its the one thing the IIHF does well.

Fans being more knowledgable about the game does not put lipstick on that pig. You can enjoy the world championships, I dont care, some people enjoy jersey shore.

but to suggest that the world championships are not, at best, a third rate spectacle designed so that the IIHF can flip off the NHL is nonsense.

fun knowledgable and any other reason includeing the party atmosphere to make it worth your time doesnt change the fact that the talent of the hockey is not world class.

So Mike Smith is not world class. Steven Stamkos is not world class. Alex Ovechkin is not world class. Patrick Kane is not world class. Ilya Kovalchuk is not world class.

Gotcha.

 

[sandysan]

So Mike Smith is not world class. Steven Stamkos is not world class. Alex Ovechkin is not world class. Patrick Kane is not world class. Ilya Kovalchuk is not world class.

Gotcha.

Mike smith is debatable but the rosters are peppered with world class talent and filled with prospects, beens and never will be's.

I'm not going to apologize for wanting to watch the best players in the most competitive league battle for the most treasured trophy in all of hockey. not to you not to anyone.

If you want to support the lesser in all three, be my guest but lets not pretend that the world championships are nothing more than " some of the best on some of the best".

if you enjoy it that's great, different strokes for different folks. If you dont have access to the NHL this might be the best hockey you have aceess to, but that's still by ommission. You seem to be precisely the type of fan the IIHF wants, make it entertaining and hope they dont have a better frame of reference so you can dupedthem into thinking it matters more than it does.

 

[Jack Straw]

One other factor that I don't think has been mentioned is the NHL's contract with NBC. NBC will be televising the Olympics in 2018. The current contract with the NHL ends in 2021. I'm sure NBC would much prefer NHL players to participate in 2018. Would the network be less likely to renew their NHL contract if they aren't sure whether NHL players will be competing in 2022?

 

[Jussi]

I'm a big fan of the juniors because I consider it the best on best with an age cap. its the one thing the IIHF does well.

Fans being more knowledgable about the game does not put lipstick on that pig. You can enjoy the world championships, I dont care, some people enjoy jersey shore.

but to suggest that the world championships are not, at best, a third rate spectacle designed so that the IIHF can flip off the NHL is nonsense.

fun knowledgable and any other reason includeing the party atmosphere to make it worth your time doesnt change the fact that the talent of the hockey is not world class.

World juniors can in no way be called a best-on-best due to cyclical nature of junior development.

Yup, Worlds are designed to flip off the NHL... I suggest you look into IIHF charter on what their mission is and what happens to all the revenue from the Worlds. It's easy to find via Google.

 

[oil4life97]

Yeah our owners don't have enough money!! Give them more! Build their rinks for them too!

 

[Lempo]

One of the less visible in numbers things that NHL gains is that those guys that play minor minutes in NHL or are promising rookies may in their national rosters, at least for less depth countries, get a much bigger role in best vs. best games and really show their potential in action, without NHL teams having to risk their games to give them that chance.

 

[Rob]

If the League thought their was a tangible benefit to going to the Olympics, we wouldn't be having these threads every four years - but they don't.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...n-benefits-of-olympics-as-players-want-medals

Exactly! This should be a sticky!

For those who are still trying to claim that the Olympics benefit the NHL financially please read the above link. Remember, we are talking about business. Not what the fans like.

 

[Lempo]

"No other league does it." Is he talking about NFL, NBA and baseball there, and are there some less visible benefits for NHL in the competition against them in ice-hockey being an Olympic sport and a major draw in the Olympics for that matter? Like, the figures aren't going up, okay, but is there a risk they would be going down instead if there was not this major international tournament connection? Does NHL kind of need this international connection to elevate ice-hockey as a sport for to compete on domestic level with the other more popular sports leagues in US of which very few people internationally cares about?

And, if so, is it for that end the best long time strategy to say effectively say that "Yeah, we round up the best sons of every country and sometimes mostly sit them in the 3rd/4th line duties while the 1st/2nd liners play the game and rest on the commercial breaks and put them through so tight a schedule that they need sleeping pills to get sleep and pseudoephedrine to wake up and DON'T allow them to go play for their countries for three weeks in every fourth year cos there's some money we won't be making at that time"?

 

[Lempo]

Exactly! This should be a sticky!

For those who are still trying to claim that the Olympics benefit the NHL financially please read the above link. Remember, we are talking about business. Not what the fans like.

It's business, the players are the employees and have negotiated an Olympic vacation for every fourth year. Sure, the employer may want to get rid of that particular negotiated benefit but the employees may want to have it compensated in straight salaries or something else the next round then. I'm not so surre this 1) don't do Olympics, 2) xxx, 3) profit! -scheme works.

 

[sandysan]

World juniors can in no way be called a best-on-best due to cyclical nature of junior development.

Yup, Worlds are designed to flip off the NHL... I suggest you look into IIHF charter on what their mission is and what happens to all the revenue from the Worlds. It's easy to find via Google.

players below a certain age all have the opportunity to play, the world juniors arent played during the playoffs. I can't control how players develop, does this punish late bloomers, sure. Will all players from the wjhc pan out? no but it is the most level.

as for the iihf, can I guess to pay for rene fassel's suits and his hair stylist?

 

[Rob]

It's business, the players are the employees and have negotiated an Olympic vacation for every fourth year. Sure, the employer may want to get rid of that particular negotiated benefit but the employees may want to have it compensated in straight salaries or something else the next round then. I'm not so surre this 1) don't do Olympics, 2) xxx, 3) profit! -scheme works.

The original purpose of allowing NHL players to participate in the Olympics was to increase the popularity hockey in general (and the NHL in particular) in the United States. The owners do not believe that has happened. That is why ownership down South has come out strongly against continued participation.

 

[Cawz]

The original purpose of allowing NHL players to participate in the Olympics was to increase the popularity hockey in general (and the NHL in particular) in the United States. The owners do not believe that has happened. That is why ownership down South has come out strongly against continued participation.

Money is the only this that will sway opinions with the owners. Even with that, it may not be enough, but the IOC is going to have to pony up some cash if they want the owners to agree. These recent Olympics were a unique case becasue the Russians wanted to play no matter what, and the owners wouldnt want to piss off a good chunk of their employees. Thats not going to be the case in Korea.

 

[FiLe]

Money is the only this that will sway opinions with the owners. Even with that, it may not be enough, but the IOC is going to have to pony up some cash if they want the owners to agree. These recent Olympics were a unique case becasue the Russians wanted to play no matter what, and the owners wouldnt want to piss off a good chunk of their employees. Thats not going to be the case in Korea.

Yeah, sadly, it's all about money.

Currently, the NHL almost has an monopoly on the best players in the world. So, what's the best way to make 'em come to their senses? Another league with equal money to spare.

Guess what? There is such league now. It can pay competitive salaries, meaning it will draw in some guys who would otherwise figure the NHL as their only choice. And with every guy joining over, it becomes increasingly enticing for others as well. And hey, this particular league is in full sync with the international calendar...

Once the suits in their boxes wake up to this reality, suddenly allowing that three-week holiday every fourth year may not look like such a bad concession after all.

 

[Cawz]

Yeah, sadly, it's all about money.

Currently, the NHL almost has an monopoly on the best players in the world. So, what's the best way to make 'em come to their senses? Another league with equal money to spare.

Guess what? There is such league now. It can pay competitive salaries, meaning it will draw in some guys who would otherwise figure the NHL as their only choice. And with every guy joining over, it becomes increasingly enticing for others as well. And hey, this particular league is in full sync with the international calendar...

Once the suits in their boxes wake up to this reality, suddenly allowing that three-week holiday every fourth year may not look like such a bad concession after all.

Well, its about the money to the IOC as well. I agree with the owners. They have paying customers to worry about (their fans). If you look at risk vs reward, there is a huge risk sending players to the Olympics, but little if any reward. Its not some little holiday every 4 years, its a break in which there is a very real possibility that your best players will come back either tired as the best case scenario, or at worst case, injured.

If I was an owner of a hockey team, I wouldnt want my guys to go. As a fan, sure. As a business owner, no way.

 

[eme]

I understand the injury factor to a point. Then again, tavares could have been injured just as well when playing in the NHL at the same time, or even in team training. Injuries happen, they are part of the sport, and it shouldn't really matter where it occurs, since the end result is the same. And someone pointed out that while injuries happened in the olympics, the probability of IR list being a lot shorter rather longer is a lot higher after the olympic break.

 

[Thesensation19*]

The NHL would be better off doing its own World Cup every two years during the summer. That would get more attention that anything the Olympics could offer.

I do not agree. I think the Olympics has a lust factor. Hockey fans might be heavily intrigued by a World Cup but The Olympics is the prime spot to grow the sport. Its where tradition and cultures come as one. Its where the whole world watches because its THE OLYMPICS. Its where new fans are formed because of the popularity. People watch the Olympics simply because its called the Olympics. It has always been that way. Look at the ratings.


The NHL is making money off of the Olympics. Just not directly. You don't think the NHL and hockey as a whole grew in popularity because of the last two Olympics. I was seeing people who I never thought cared about sports in general waking up at 730AM to watch USA play anyone. People are dying for their teams to start up again. People are wanting to listen and hear more about it.


The Olympics should be with the pros every four years. 2018, 2022, 2026...
The World Cup should be created to rotate every 2 years in between the Olympics. 2016, 2020, 2024... To capitalize on the passion that follows the Olympics. To take the patriotism and grow the game further.

The last 3 weeks was great. Watching different styles, players, coaches, cultures come together and play one another. It was a refresher from a long NHL season and now that its back, im excited even more where before I was getting bored.

 

[FuriousSenator]

I do not agree. I think the Olympics has a lust factor. Hockey fans might be heavily intrigued by a World Cup but The Olympics is the prime spot to grow the sport. Its where tradition and cultures come as one. Its where the whole world watches because its THE OLYMPICS. Its where new fans are formed because of the popularity. People watch the Olympics simply because its called the Olympics. It has always been that way. Look at the ratings.


The NHL is making money off of the Olympics. Just not directly. You don't think the NHL and hockey as a whole grew in popularity because of the last two Olympics. I was seeing people who I never thought cared about sports in general waking up at 730AM to watch USA play anyone. People are dying for their teams to start up again. People are wanting to listen and hear more about it.


The Olympics should be with the pros every four years. 2018, 2022, 2026...
The World Cup should be created to rotate every 2 years in between the Olympics. 2016, 2020, 2024... To capitalize on the passion that follows the Olympics. To take the patriotism and grow the game further.

The last 3 weeks was great. Watching different styles, players, coaches, cultures come together and play one another. It was a refresher from a long NHL season and now that its back, im excited even more where before I was getting bored.

Except even prominent NHL officials like Daly are complaining the NHL is getting nothing positive out of the Olympics.

Many posters above you (if you had bothered to read the thread) have proven without a shadow of a doubt that the Olympics has not 'grown the game' to any significant degree.

All you've got to offer are vague anecdotes. Got any statistics to back that up? Here are some anecdotes of my own! Not a single one of my American friends (and I have quite a few as I attend a very international university in the UK) could give a flat damn about the NHL. Even those from hockey hotbeds like Chicago, Pittsburgh etc... This after watching every single team USA hockey game during the Olympics.

Olympics interest =/= NHL/general hockey interest. It just doesn't. Period.

 

[sandysan]

The NHL is making money off of the Olympics. Just not directly. You don't think the NHL and hockey as a whole grew in popularity because of the last two Olympics. I was seeing people who I never thought cared about sports in general waking up at 730AM to watch USA play anyone. People are dying for their teams to start up again. People are wanting to listen and hear more about it.
.

for many hockey to them is the equivalent to bobseld or skeleton to me. if its on, I might watch it. If I watch it again, 4 years have passed. the half life of most olympic athletes is what after the end of the games ? 2 weeks ?

and even if the fans were not discerning, if you hook them on filet mignon ( best players on best) thes best NHL games are dramatically different. If they dont like fights, or if they like the perimeter play afforded by the big ice, the NHL might not be their cup of tea at all.

 

[Forsberg21Sakic19]

My argument was not quantitative, of course other leagues exist.it's qualitative, the best players on the planet overwhelmingly play in the nhl ( from all countries).

If you guys want to have intramural tourneys, fine by me.

And just wondering, where in NA did you find people marveling about the quality improvements of the KHL?

My apologies, I should have specified. I meant to say that during my trips to Europe over the past 2 years, I have noticed a significant shift in attitude towards the KHL among fans of the other European Ice Hockey Nations (Switzerland, Germany, Czech Republic, Sweden, Finland, etc...)

I won't argue that the best players in the world largely play in the NHL. What I will say is that the pool of quality player has deepened and the KHL has increasingly started to pull talent that unquestionably would have gone to the NHL in decades prior.

It is unfortunate that you express such innate certainty that the NHL will always be the sole, predominant power in the world of ice hockey because I think that some morning, in the not too distant future you are going to have a rude awakening.

Its a globalizing world friend, and hockey is not exempt from it.

 

[v-man]

I'm a big fan of the juniors because I consider it the best on best with an age cap. its the one thing the IIHF does well.

Fans being more knowledgable about the game does not put lipstick on that pig. You can enjoy the world championships, I dont care, some people enjoy jersey shore.

but to suggest that the world championships are not, at best, a third rate spectacle designed so that the IIHF can flip off the NHL is nonsense.

fun knowledgable and any other reason includeing the party atmosphere to make it worth your time doesnt change the fact that the talent of the hockey is not world class.

First off, it's second rate, not third. Second, the NHL extended its season into World Championship territory, not the other way around. The vast majority of the hockey world is done playing at that time of year, not to mention 80% of NHL teams. Very few players are not available for their nations, and only a handful of those left in the SC playoffs would even be selected for their teams as it is. Why should everyone else have to delay their vacation further to appease a couple NHL players?

I don't see how one can thoroughly enjoy the level of competition at the World Juniors and then in the same breath say they don't enjoy World Championship hockey because it's "third rate". The junior level is so much lower. You've been bred to enjoy it by TSN, completely ignoring the reality of the caliber of play. I guess it's true what they say: "Ignorance is bliss".

I can tell you from having been to both tournaments both in Canada and abroad, the WJC doesn't come close to the WC both on the ice and off.

 

[sandysan]

First off, it's second rate, not third. Second, the NHL extended its season into World Championship territory, not the other way around. The vast majority of the hockey world is done playing at that time of year, not to mention 80% of NHL teams. Very few players are not available for their nations, and only a handful of those left in the SC playoffs would even be selected for their teams as it is. Why should everyone else have to delay their vacation further to appease a couple NHL players?

I don't see how one can thoroughly enjoy the level of competition at the World Juniors and then in the same breath say they don't enjoy World Championship hockey because it's "third rate". The junior level is so much lower. You've been bred to enjoy it by TSN, completely ignoring the reality of the caliber of play. I guess it's true what they say: "Ignorance is bliss".

I can tell you from having been to both tournaments both in Canada and abroad, the WJC doesn't come close to the WC both on the ice and off.

Because best on best of a certain age is far less arbitrary than best on best provided their team didn't make the playoffs and they actually want to go.

is the wjhc as good as the world chambionship, no. But the primary metric for selection is talent, not availability

 

[Lempo]

Because best on best of a certain age is far less arbitrary than best on best provided their team didn't make the playoffs and they actually want to go.

is the wjhc as good as the world chambionship, no. But the primary metric for selection is talent, not availability

I like that roulette effect where the teams have to get who they can and all that waiting and speculating for the possible reinforcements. Not being able to necessarily play the same-old-same-old tested good combos gives other players the chance to shine should they choose to grab it.