When Will The USA Be The Country To Beat? (EDIT: Not just for WJHC)

[sandysan]

Basically this. Because of the climate in the US, most states can't support outdoor rinks and therefore the game becomes very expensive. If hockey can become inexpensive enough that more people can afford to put their kid into it, then the US will expand more. I played soccer, basketball, and softball and none of those were equipment-heavy sports and none of them required more than a gym or a field.

It's awesome that kids from California, Texas, Arizona, Florida, etc. are starting to develop into legit stars. If the training and development availability weren't so exclusive, you'd probably see more American kids get into hockey.

But until that happens there's no competition.

and in the states, the majority of the rinks are privately owned, whereas even is small towns in Canada the local communities pay at least parts of the costs of building and operating local arenas.

The growth of the game in parts of the US is pretty impressive, but its going to get bottlenecked soon unless there is a huge movement towards community rinks, something that I think just fails the smell test to tons of taxpayers in the south. So hockey ends up being an extremely expensive sport practiced almost exclusively by the affluent. Essentially the winter version of polo.

there are community pools,diamonds, courts ( tennis and basketball) everywhere in the states. Community rinks are FAR less common.

 

[Al Swearengen]

Participation numbers in a sport don't necessarily lead to success. Look at Sweden, Finland, or the Czech Republic. These are hugely successful hockey nations with populations that are roughly a third of Canada's or less.

And then look at Canada, a medium-sized population who has a greater participation in soccer than in hockey, but has a current FIFA ranking of 122. Soccer has been vogue in Canada for over a decade, but is not (edit: as common a) passion for those past 2nd generation immigration.

America is killer at building sports infrastructure, and I have no doubt they may eventually do it with hockey. But a nation that bleeds/eats/craps its sport will produce more MINDS that think and teach that sport in a furtive way. That is they key area where America is still catching up to Canada.

Like I said, I think they may do just that, but it won't be because of numbers. It will be because of legacy families, regional rivalries, local dedication, and love of the game. Will baseball, football, basketball et. al get in the way of that cultural dedication? We'll see. Maybe there's room for it all. Maybe not.

 

[Tom Brady]

Some countries just dominate certain sports, you see it at the olympics despite their populations compared to bigger countries.

Canada isn't going anywhere, any time soon.

Agreed.

 

[CarlWinslow]

Oooooh awful comparison

How so? All I'm reading is about how these top picks will be Americans and therefore they are bypassing Canadians.

Well the two top picks in the NBA were Canadians. So using the criteria established by American posters, the USA has been surpassed in hoops.

 

[McMatthews]

Never.

They may win a major tournament or two over the next decade but they'll never be THE dominant force in this sport.

 

[RiceCooker]

Never.

They may win a major tournament or two over the next decade but they'll never be THE dominant force in this sport.

Lol, never...it will happen eventually.

 

[BigBen]

Lol, never...it will happen eventually.

No it won't. If for some reason Canada falls of the face of the earth in hockey (which won't happen), Russia or a Scandinavian country will take over. Hockey culture will never surpass football, basketball or baseball in the states.

 

[King Karl]

The day the United States runs out of resources and invades Canada, and claims it as their own

 

[daver]

Lol, never...it will happen eventually.

If a country like Russia, who looked to be a close to Canada since the 70's, has a significantly larger population, and similar climate hasn't, why would the US?

 

[nobuddy]

How so? All I'm reading is about how these top picks will be Americans and therefore they are bypassing Canadians.

Well the two top picks in the NBA were Canadians. So using the criteria established by American posters, the USA has been surpassed in hoops.

Look at the top 30 in the NBA in points per game and tell me how many Canadians you see.

Then look at the top 30 in the NHL in points and tell me how many Americans you see.

Wiggins and Bennett are a flash in the pan. American hockey players have been going high in the draft for a really long time (EJ, Kessel, JVR, Kane, Fowler, Galchenyuk, Jones) it's a progression that's taking over and now we're going to start consistently seeing Americans in the top five of the NHL draft. Not just starting in the late first round for the most part.

 

[Easton Modano Curve]

Too hard to guess if USA will ever even Canada.

Growing up in USA hockey system, the quality of coaches (especially at the top levels) has increased exponentially since I've been alive.

Sure you can play outdoors in Canada to further develop your skills. But kids in USA can play whenever they want now too with indoor rinks, hockey camps, etc.

Besides hockey being so engrained in the Canadian culture, I always thought the biggest advantage Canadians had was access to superior instruction from a very young age. I think that gap is closing somewhat.

 

[AD1066]

If a country like Russia, who looked to be a close to Canada since the 70's, has a significantly larger population, and similar climate hasn't, why would the US?

I don't know that Russia is a good comparison to the US...

No it won't. If for some reason Canada falls of the face of the earth in hockey (which won't happen), Russia or a Scandinavian country will take over. Hockey culture will never surpass football, basketball or baseball in the states.

Why Russia or a Scandinavian country?

 

[Roughneck]

Some countries just dominate certain sports, you see it at the olympics despite their populations compared to bigger countries.

Canada isn't going anywhere, any time soon.

Or with New Zealand in rugby.

less than 5 million people, still are the team to beat year in and year out.

 

[Incognito]

For the Olympics/World Cup/best-on-best tournaments, never. Not as long as Canada is still a thing.

 

[Claypool]

If a country like Russia, who looked to be a close to Canada since the 70's, has a significantly larger population, and similar climate hasn't, why would the US?

Because the country's best athletes aren't playing hockey. This has been discussed already. Despite having 300 million people only a small subset of those are in "hockey climate" cities (Michigan, Massachusetts, New York, etc). Then you have to account that the best athletes in those locations aren't playing hockey, either. U.S.A. Hockey basically gets the leftovers.

 

[ADifferentTim]

The correct answer to this title question is "only when the USA is defending champion."

 

[FoppaForsberg*]

never. Always a 2nd tier team compared to Canada, Sweden, Russia

 

[YMCMBYOLO]

Because the country's best athletes aren't playing hockey. This has been discussed already. Despite having 300 million people only a small subset of those are in "hockey climate" cities (Michigan, Massachusetts, New York, etc). Then you have to account that the best athletes in those locations aren't playing hockey, either. U.S.A. Hockey basically gets the leftovers.

What makes you think that the USA's best athletes are better than Canada's?

 

[Old Navy Goat]

What makes you think that the USA's best athletes are better than Canada's?

Taking common sports, the US dominates in pretty much every one of them except for hockey. So unless all of Canada's best athletes only play hockey it would imply that the US athletes are better. Of course the US has a substantially higher population which favors them.

 

[ForumNamePending]

Look at the top 30 in the NBA in points per game and tell me how many Canadians you see.

Then look at the top 30 in the NHL in points and tell me how many Americans you see.

Wiggins and Bennett are a flash in the pan. American hockey players have been going high in the draft for a really long time (EJ, Kessel, JVR, Kane, Fowler, Galchenyuk, Jones) it's a progression that's taking over and now we're going to start consistently seeing Americans in the top five of the NHL draft. Not just starting in the late first round for the most part.

Your post contradicts itself... You start out by saying American hockey players have been going high in the draft for a very long time (and list 6 top 5 picks) and then end by saying we're going to start seeing American's go in the top 5 instead of the late first round as if it would be some new phenomenon. I think I agree with the point you are trying to make though... If anything, up to this point, given the number of players and arenas, the US has underperformed when it comes to producing hockey players but is now starting to punch at it's weight.

As far as basketball goes... Ya, it's probably safe to say Canadians going 1st in consectutive years is a 'flash in the pan' but I don't think Canadians being lottery picks will be. Actually if we are looking for a 'new phenomenon' Canadians being selected in the NBA draft (including several lottery picks already) would be one. Given the much smaller population and the fact it's been pretty much only 1 metro producing the talent (with no other city having a local team to drive interest this may not change anytime soon either) Canadians will never have the same impact on the NBA that Americans have had on the NHL, but IMHO it's still somewhat impressive that in a span of about 4 years Canadian NBA content has gone from Steve Nash and one or two other guys to the second most common nationality in the league.

Because the country's best athletes aren't playing hockey. This has been discussed already. Despite having 300 million people only a small subset of those are in "hockey climate" cities (Michigan, Massachusetts, New York, etc). Then you have to account that the best athletes in those locations aren't playing hockey, either. U.S.A. Hockey basically gets the leftovers.

If your argument is a smaller percentage of Americans pick hockey over baseball, basketball & football than ya of course... But you're making it sound as if American NHL players only started playing hockey because they weren't good at anything else. I doubt there are any Americans in the NHL who only took up hockey at 15 after being cut from their HS's football team.

 

[member 145483]

Taking common sports, the US dominates in pretty much every one of them except for hockey. So unless all of Canada's best athletes only play hockey it would imply that the US athletes are better. Of course the US has a substantially higher population which favors them.

By common, I assume you mean common North American sports, because the US doesn't dominate many sports outside of those.

Aside from that, population is hardly the determining factor. Resources per participant is.

The countries that provide the most resources per participant produce the best average. The population size just dictates how many participants will be above or below that average.

For example, if two countries both provided an equal amount of resources per participant, and had equal numbers of participants, we would expect an equal number and quality of players. I

f country A has twice as many participants, but still provides the same amount of resources per player as country B, we would expect country A to produce twice as many players of all quality levels.

Country B could combat this by increasing their participation or by increasing the amount of resources per participant.

But, and there is always a but...there is a substantial level of diminishing return when going the resource route. If you have enough ice to provide enough ice time to every participant, more ice surfaces won't really provide any gains.

As it stands now, the US has lots of participants, but not nearly enough resources per participant to get ahead of Canada. Will that change in the future? I hope so, but that is for us to wait and see.

 

[Old Navy Goat]

By common, I assume you mean common North American sports, because the US doesn't dominate many sports outside of those.

Correct in sports common to both countries. The US is catching but IMO won't surpass Canada in hockey due to its irrelevance to the majority of the US. Outside of a few regions, there's a lack of resources allocated to the sport and its not ingrained in the mindset of kids as a viable alternative to football, basketball, baseball. It is intriguing seeing the relative explosion of highly talented youngsters emerging from non-traditional markets which only bodes well for its continued growth. The issue as you stated is the lack of resources across the country that not only means ice but quality coaching to advance the kids.

 

[T Low]

So what? Maybe he was simply better suited to hockey than to football. Conversely there's no evidence the guys who beat him out at the football would have made the hockey team. That says nothing about which sport has the best athletes.

He was better suited to hockey because there was less competition. His father, his coaches, and I were there, we know it.

Just like Luke Glendenning. He got pummeled in football, realized he couldn't play D1 NCAA football, so he tried out for UofM Hockey and ends up captain of the team and later makes the Red Wings.

 

[jekoh]

He was better suited to hockey because there was less competition. His father, his coaches, and I were there, we know it.

Just like Luke Glendenning. He got pummeled in football, realized he couldn't play D1 NCAA football, so he tried out for UofM Hockey and ends up captain of the team and later makes the Red Wings.

As I said there is no evidence that the guys who did make the football team would have made the hockey team. They are not better athletes, just better at playing football.

If there are more people playing football than hockey, then of course there will be more competition in the football and it will be harder to make the top teams. But that still says nothing about which group has better athletes.

 

[YMCMBYOLO]

Taking common sports, the US dominates in pretty much every one of them except for hockey. So unless all of Canada's best athletes only play hockey it would imply that the US athletes are better. Of course the US has a substantially higher population which favors them.

USA only dominates one sport and that's basketball. They aren't even the best in baseball anymore and no one outside of NA even plays football.