Would you shell out for a WNHL?

[Borlag]

wow that'll send out a real good message to young girls

Sadly a thing like that would most likely gather more interest than the actual game they play, regardless of the level of play.

There's also womens hockey leagues in some european countries, I know atleast here in Finland there's one, possibly more.

 

[lemieux32*]

I think this thread speaks for itself. Out of the, what, 44 posts, how many have said that it would be a good idea? 4? And the NHL is a league teetering on the brink. You're deluding yourself if you think otherwise. Aside from hardcore fans, no one watches the games on television, ticket prices continue to be outrageous, and the game is less than one year removed from a labor stoppage that could have potentially ended major professional hockey in North America. Strikes are not the sign of a league that is thriving (see: NFL, which has had one major labor stoppage and that was in the mid-80s), but the sign of a game that is beginning to die off (see: MLB in the mid-90s, which was ultimately saved by juiced up power hitters and big numbers... ironic, isn't it?)

The women I played against were good enough to play high level DI hockey. They were not just some random players, as you say. A cousin of mine was a reserve goaltender for the national team (not an Olympic team). None of them would've been first liners on my high school team.

I think women's hockey has its niche. It's a fine sport to play for young women, and there's no reason for girls not to be encouraged to play the game. I don't dislike women's hockey as a sport that can be played at all. However, to think every sport that exists deserves a highly marketed professional league dedicated to it is ludicrous. Lacrosse is more popular than women's hockey, but the national lacrosse league is a very low-budget enterprise that folds teams regularly after only one or two years in the league and has always been very small with very low salaries, and though women play lacrosse as well there is no professional league. There is no professional curling league that is highly marketed, or to go even more mainstream, the professional softball league in the U.S. is hardly a speck on the sports map. There's no pro field hockey league in the United States, though girls begin field hockey as early as five here. There is no professional rugby union in the U.S., just a smattering of club teams.

To try to give every sport that could possibly be played by both men and women it's due with a marketable league would be impossible. No one is going to want to sit down and watch women's lacrosse on a Saturday afternoon, and very few people will want to take their kids to see a women's hockey game when a far more interesting men's game is going on next door, or even on the TV. Professional sports, in the end, are all about the bottom line, which is a shame, but the truth.

Well besides the facts that you didn't respond to most of what I said, you obviously think TV is the only sign of a league health and you think I said a women's league would be a good idea and the fact that you base everything you say upon your scouting ability comparing college players at mysterious unnamed DI schools to your mysterious unamed high school, I'd say you are dead on. Oh, wait I just trashed everything you said.

 

[lemieux32*]

This thread and the one on Olympic hockey have done a good job flushing out the guys who are too insecure to see strong women or to see women succeed where they have failed. Interesting. Later.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

1. Did you not hear that over 60000 females play hockey in Canada. There's the people that go to those games right there.

2. *shakes head*

3. again *shakes head* There is contact. Try playing with women before you ever say that. I've gotten more broken bones, sore muscles, and bruises from playing with females then I have males.

4. You're right because the world is full of ignorant people like you in the corporate world

First, I don't want to diss women's hockey - they are incredible atheletes and work just as hard as their male counterparts.

But I think the WNHL would be destined to die a quick painful death. The WNBA is a joke, and only gets any run whatsoever is because the NBA turned it into a package deal. If you want the NBA, you have to televise so many WNBA games etc. The NHL doesn't have the same sort of leverage to force a major network into that sort of package deal.

The WNHL would be in even worse shape than the WNBA because it's a non-contact league. The physical aspect of hockey is a big part of what makes it so popular, and that is lacking in the womens side of the sport.

Add in that the ice conditions would be absolutely BRUTAL in the summer, and I even before you get to the likely total lack of economics support, they league would be fail in very short order.

 

[JacketsFanWest]

Yes, I would pay to watch a WNHL.

However, I would rather that women had to opportunity to play in the NHL, rather than having the legals be segregated. I believe it won't be long before there are female hockey players able to play at the NHL level, especially with the "new" NHL favoring skating skill.

I really pains me reading the horrible comments of the male hockey fans on here and it unfortunately reminds me of the absolutely horrendous and disgraceful treatment Erin Whitten received from some Toledo Storm fans. I was hoping things might have changed 12 years later, but unfortunately some men are still pigs.

I'm very proud of the progress women's hockey had made and that women and girls will be a major force in the hockey world for years to come.

 

[Beatnik]

There already is a league. That tells you how popular it is, most people are not even aware it exists.

True. There is a team in Québec city and I don't know their name and where they play.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Yes, I would pay to watch a WNHL.

However, I would rather that women had to opportunity to play in the NHL, rather than having the legals be segregated. I believe it won't be long before there are female hockey players able to play at the NHL level, especially with the "new" NHL favoring skating skill.

I really pains me reading the horrible comments of the male hockey fans on here and it unfortunately reminds me of the absolutely horrendous and disgraceful treatment Erin Whitten received from some Toledo Storm fans. I was hoping things might have changed 12 years later, but unfortunately some men are still pigs.

I'm very proud of the progress women's hockey had made and that women and girls will be a major force in the hockey world for years to come.

Agree there are some total pigs who are posting in this thread.

However, I think you are incredibly off base if you honestly think that there are women skaters that are close to being able to compete in the NHL. (Playing in goal might be a different issue). The difference in the game, both speed and physical involvement wise, are just massive.

I remember Rebecca Lobo (probably one of the top 5 most dominating collegiate female basketball players ever) talking about when she practiced against the UCONN mens basketball team, and she just said - it's a totally different game.

 

[RSBPC]

Nope, sorry.

I've been watching some of the Olypmic hockey and it is brutally slow. It has nothing to do with gender or anything, it's just that the quality of hockey is not good enough to hold my attention, and that is saying a lot because I love the game.

 

[primetime]

Well besides the facts that you didn't respond to most of what I said, you obviously think TV is the only sign of a league health and you think I said a women's league would be a good idea and the fact that you base everything you say upon your scouting ability comparing college players at mysterious unnamed DI schools to your mysterious unamed high school, I'd say you are dead on. Oh, wait I just trashed everything you said.

I'm not going to hand out private information on a public message board. Sorry bud, but that's just stupid. If you're going to base your argument on that, don't bother. You won't get anything out of me. As far as the 8-0 goes, it was hyperbole. In 2003, the US women's world championship team scrimmaged the University of Virginia men's team (hardly a hockey powerhouse) and lost 3-1, besides the losses to Warroad (2-1) and Choate (6-2) in this pre-Olympic tour.

As far as league health and TV, well, the best leagues are in fact the most televised. Why does the NFL have the best package, followed by MLB and the NBA, with the NHL a far distant fourth? The fact that networks are willing to pay for rights to televise events are an indication of the popularity of a league and the league's marketability. It isn't TV that shows off league health, it's a variety of things, though mostly it's all the bottom line. The NHL is fresh off a strike and few teams are turning extensive profits. Compare this to the NFL, where even the weakest franchises (Arizona Cardinals, for instance) turn hefty profits which grow even more thanks to revenue sharing, and you can see that the NHL is like the weaker cousin of the other major North American sports leagues. The fact that it didn't have a season last year and its classic popularity has been limited to Canada and hockey towns in the north of the country does not help. If you want to argue this point, feel free to explain to me how the NHL isn't a league in danger of failure.

A women's hockey league subsidized by the NHL would just be a drain on the coffers of the league, something that the NHL does not need at this point in time. Women's hockey is great as a sport up until college and is excellent for international play, but bush league professional teams like the ones that currently exist (the equivalent of an Arena Football League) are about all that are economically feasible. I love hockey, I love the NHL, and I love watching Olympic hockey of both genders. Women's hockey is a different sport than men's hockey, but that's not to say women shouldn't be playing hockey. I'd rather watch women's hockey than women's lacrosse in a pinch, too.

 

[Miracle80]

After reading this thread I tried to watch to watch a womens olympic hockey game. JUST PAINFUL!! I would pay NHL ticket prices for an ECHL game before I would ever pay to see womens hockey.
BTW I could only stomach about a minute thirty.

 

[DougKnowsBest]

let me try to help you understand womens hockey.

1st you have to stop expecting them to play at an NHL speed. Its apples to oranges.

2nd you have to realy enjoy the game of hockey, not just the NHL

3rd you have to open your mind to something new and different

4th you have to enjoy watching people compete at the highest levels of their sport

 

[lemieux32*]

I'm not going to hand out private information on a public message board. Sorry bud, but that's just stupid. If you're going to base your argument on that, don't bother. You won't get anything out of me. As far as the 8-0 goes, it was hyperbole. In 2003, the US women's world championship team scrimmaged the University of Virginia men's team (hardly a hockey powerhouse) and lost 3-1, besides the losses to Warroad (2-1) and Choate (6-2) in this pre-Olympic tour.

Of course this is the answer I expected. "I'm not telling, followed by a supposed scrimmage against a club team that info on can't be found on the net and two losses that are far from your original 8-0 "getting their butts handed to them on a silver platter"...oh wait that was hyperbole now that you have nothing to back it up. Of course those scores say nothing about ability or skill as anyone who was at those games will tell you that they got beat by physical play on the boards...not surprising since it is men vs. women, but I am sure you'll have some reason why that's not good enough.

As far as league health and TV, well, the best leagues are in fact the most televised. Why does the NFL have the best package, followed by MLB and the NBA, with the NHL a far distant fourth? The fact that networks are willing to pay for rights to televise events are an indication of the popularity of a league and the league's marketability. It isn't TV that shows off league health, it's a variety of things, though mostly it's all the bottom line. The NHL is fresh off a strike and few teams are turning extensive profits. Compare this to the NFL, where even the weakest franchises (Arizona Cardinals, for instance) turn hefty profits which grow even more thanks to revenue sharing, and you can see that the NHL is like the weaker cousin of the other major North American sports leagues. The fact that it didn't have a season last year and its classic popularity has been limited to Canada and hockey towns in the north of the country does not help. If you want to argue this point, feel free to explain to me how the NHL isn't a league in danger of failure.

Explain? Ok, real easy, the NHL has never been a national TV money driven league. The NHL has always been making money off ticket sales, concessions and local media revenues. Just one more thing you apparently never knew. The NHL never has had huge TV contracts, even in it's best years, because it is a regional sport. The strike is over, attendance is up, merchandise sales are up but you think because their is no huge network TV deal the NHL is on the brink of failure. By the way have you seen any of the info on profit projections being much higher then anticipated?

A women's hockey league subsidized by the NHL would just be a drain on the coffers of the league, something that the NHL does not need at this point in time. Women's hockey is great as a sport up until college and is excellent for international play, but bush league professional teams like the ones that currently exist (the equivalent of an Arena Football League) are about all that are economically feasible. I love hockey, I love the NHL, and I love watching Olympic hockey of both genders. Women's hockey is a different sport than men's hockey, but that's not to say women shouldn't be playing hockey. I'd rather watch women's hockey than women's lacrosse in a pinch, too.

Why do you keep brining this up? I never said anything about whether their should be a league or not.

 

[lemieux32*]

let me try to help you understand womens hockey.

1st you have to stop expecting them to play at an NHL speed. Its apples to oranges.

2nd you have to realy enjoy the game of hockey, not just the NHL

3rd you have to open your mind to something new and different

4th you have to enjoy watching people compete at the highest levels of their sport

QFA, great post.

 

[ZadorovNJD*]

This thread and the one on Olympic hockey have done a good job flushing out the guys who are too insecure to see strong women or to see women succeed where they have failed. Interesting. Later.

Oh get off your high horse. Why would I pay to see a women's league when I can go to NHL, WHL, ECHL, or even BCHL games?

 

[Coffey77]

Peli may be a bit harsh but he has made valid points, well maybe not the visor thing, I disagree on that.

I rarely pay to watch NHL games (since it's so darn expensive) so I wouldn't watch women's hockey. No offense to the women because they are athletes too but it's inferior hockey.

As far as physicality is concerned women just don't match up against men. I remember in high school there was a girl who was an All-Ontario woman's player or whatever. I've played against her, if she were a guy she'd just be average. The women's olympic teams wouldn't stand a chance against an OHL team. Or even Junior B teams. If I want to watch a cheap entertaining game I could go see an OHL game or junior A or B.

Having said that, it would be nice if women could have their own national league. But $$$$ talks. As far as women going for the NHL, not for a while. It would make more sense to try and make a league for women than try and put women in the NHL. I mean, you don't see that in tennis with mixed singles do you? And if they did the men would dominate and would make the sport boring.

 

[lemieux32*]

Oh get off your high horse. Why would I pay to see a women's league when I can go to NHL, WHL, ECHL, or even BCHL games?

Where did I say anything about paying to go to games? I have never said anything about whether I am for or against a league. Take a look at how many people have posts essentially saying women aren't good at hockey and how many suggest adding sex to sell a league. That's my point. Why would you pay to see a women's league? The same reason you would pay to see an NHL game...to the see the best in the world.

 

[The_Eck]

Why is woman's tennis so popular now?? Sex appeal. (Kournikova, Sharapova)
Also, woman's tennis is actually enjoyable to watch compared to the men's boring power tennis game. Woman's hockey is just not enjoyable to watch. Hockey is a sport meant to play at top speed, with hard hitting and intimidation which the women's game does not offer.
End of discussion

 

[Vic Rattlehead*]

I don't know, but I'm not bored from Canadian Womens hockey.

I'd pay to watch games.

 

[LadyJet26]

First, I don't want to diss women's hockey - they are incredible atheletes and work just as hard as their male counterparts.

But I think the WNHL would be destined to die a quick painful death. The WNBA is a joke, and only gets any run whatsoever is because the NBA turned it into a package deal. If you want the NBA, you have to televise so many WNBA games etc. The NHL doesn't have the same sort of leverage to force a major network into that sort of package deal.

The WNHL would be in even worse shape than the WNBA because it's a non-contact league. The physical aspect of hockey is a big part of what makes it so popular, and that is lacking in the womens side of the sport.

Add in that the ice conditions would be absolutely BRUTAL in the summer, and I even before you get to the likely total lack of economics support, they league would be fail in very short order.

Why does everyone assume that women's hockey is non-contact? It's not. Yeah they don't allow body checking, but oh wow, surprisingly (this is sarcastic btw) they still pin each other to the boards and such.

 

[Danny__K]

There already is a league. That tells you how popular it is, most people are not even aware it exists.

Yes, and the best team in the league(Oval Exterme) is not even of Junior B quality(3rd teir in Alberta)

Why pay when you can see better hockey for free?

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

WNHL would be an embarassment to the entire sport of hockey. Im all for women playing hockey but if i wanted to watch slow hockey id go watch the adult leagues play. I wouldnt pay a nickel!

 

[LadyJet26]

Yes, and the best team in the league(Oval Exterme) is not even of Junior B quality(3rd teir in Alberta)

Why pay when you can see better hockey for free?

ever think little girls playing hockey might want to see their heroines play like little boys get to see their heroes play in the NHL?

 

[The_Eck]

ever think little girls playing hockey might want to see their heroines play like little boys get to see their heroes play in the NHL?

Kim St-Pierre idolized Patrick Roy when she was younger. So there goes that argument.

 

[Stevedude530]

I don't know, the Team USA games vs. Switzerland and Germany averaged nearly 2 Million viewers on cable!

The NHL can't even get that many to watch them on a broadcast network!

 

[primetime]

Of course this is the answer I expected.

It's the answer that you should expect. I'm not going to reveal private information to prove a point that many others have already made. Dig deep enough and you'll find information on the games the US women have played.

As far as the NHL being economically strong right now and never having been a television game, you'd be wrong. The 80s and early 90s were strong years for the game and had the highest television ratings of any era. Profits may be up, but they are still nowhere near the other major sports leagues, and there are still many teams in the red. If the league were to contract, it'd both lessen dilution of talent and increase profits in markets, rather than just the league. The league can make money, but without a strong revenue sharing program or luxury tax, the current NHL is barely economically viable.