US Women's Team Won't Play 2017 WC

[marka 526]

Howdy,

1 minute ago, IPv6Freely said:

Hence the disclaimer at the bottom of my post because that's not at all what I'm saying. 

Fair enough.

 

I guess my point is that this:

ok, I'm 100% all for fair pay. This is just a case where fair pay CAN'T be equal pay because the final products aren't equal. So I support these ladies... just leave equality out of it, please.

... Doesn't seem to be valid.  It seems to be a lot more about the support provided for each team by USA hockey and keeping that equitable.  I'd argue that the final products, at least in terms of USA Hockey, ARE equal.  Or at least they should be... They're two national teams that represent the US at the highest levels of 'amateur' sport.  Its 100% true that the opportunities beyond that level currently differ (greatly), but I think the point is that they shouldn't actually differ up until that point, and that the stuff beyond that point has nothing to do with USA Hockey.

 

Sorry to push on this... Now I'm the one hoping I don't come off as being a dick.  :-)

Mark

[IPv6Freely 2092]

1 minute ago, marka said:

Howdy,

Fair enough.

 

I guess my point is that this:

 

 

... Doesn't seem to be valid.  It seems to be a lot more about the support provided for each team by USA hockey and keeping that equitable.  I'd argue that the final products, at least in terms of USA Hockey, ARE equal.  Or at least they should be... They're two national teams that represent the US at the highest levels of 'amateur' sport.  Its 100% true that the opportunities beyond that level currently differ (greatly), but I think the point is that they shouldn't actually differ up until that point, and that the stuff beyond that point has nothing to do with USA Hockey.

 

Sorry to push on this... Now I'm the one hoping I don't come off as being a dick.  :-)

Mark

No problem. Controversial topics are really hard to discuss in text form ;)

Let me try to sum up my point: I think the narrative should be "we want more because we deserve more", rather than "we want more because the men have more". 

Does that make sense?

[marka 526]

Howdy,

14 minutes ago, IPv6Freely said:

No problem. Controversial topics are really hard to discuss in text form ;)

Let me try to sum up my point: I think the narrative should be "we want more because we deserve more", rather than "we want more because the men have more". 

Does that make sense?

 

It make some sense, but I think the version I like better than either of those is "we want more because we're just as important as men, and we should be supported equally".

Putting "deserve" into it opens up huge grey areas... What have the men done to 'deserve' the support they get?  I think someone could reasonably argue that either way... That the men deserve more support or less, depending on what the arguer values.

The organization should be gender blind.  If its dramatically not that (and I assume that's likely the case, though I don't actually know and would be interested in being schooled from someone that does), I think a narrative of "we should have the same support as the men" makes total sense.

 

I'd insert a beers emoticon at this point, but I'm old and technologically inept.  :-)

Mark

[JR Boucicaut 3797]

9 hours ago, marka said:

I haven't seen anything on what sort of financial support the mens teams receive as compared to the womens team.

Mark

The NTDP gets $3M yearly for the teams in Plymouth.  USAH also purchased Compuware Arena and moved the team from Ann Arbor.

[adam14 182]

http://www.usahockey.com/news_article/show/771106?referrer_id=752796

 

i know for a fact that with mens international teams, they get a flight allowance and if they want to upgrade to first class it is on their dime. 

 

At the end of the day USA hockey is trying to generate revenue especially as a non profit. Yes there is a USNDP for boys, because there is a demand. And if you think elite levelled girls (not to take anything away from their abilities cause their skills are exceptional) are on par with any number of elite level guys hockey then you're simply dilusional. If women's hockey generated the same hype and revenue that we've seen USA soccer bring in the last 10 years it would be different. But to pay those projected amounts and some of those alleged demands is simply ludicrous. 

 

Their it job isn't to play hockey for team USA that should be considered a privilege, why are they treating it like it should be?

 

[JR Boucicaut 3797]

@Skoda10 - I'm so sorry!  I somehow deleted your post!

I thought I was deleting one of mine.

If you can repost it, that would be great.  I was trying to reply to it.

You had said that you'd rather have your USAH money go towards grassroots programs.  I laughed at that - not at you, because that was the whole intention of us paying USAH.

Questions to the Canadians though - is there a similar structure there?  Is there a membership fee to Hockey Canada?

[adam14 182]

Yes there is an annual registration fee that must be paid to be eligible to play in any league sanctioned by hockey Canada. 

[JR Boucicaut 3797]

1 minute ago, adam14 said:

At the end of the day USA hockey is trying to generate revenue especially as a non profit. Yes there is a USNDP for boys, because there is a demand. 

Is there really a demand though?

All they're doing is putting their elite players in a fishbowl so that they develop team chemistry and win international tournaments, all the while boosting their egos.  No wonder the current crop of US-born NHL young players have that elitist attitude when they come into the league.

[adam14 182]

3 minutes ago, JR Boucicaut said:

Is there really a demand though?

All they're doing is putting their elite players in a fishbowl so that they develop team chemistry and win international tournaments, all the while boosting their egos.  No wonder the current crop of US-born NHL young players have that elitist attitude when they come into the league.

I'd say the demand is there looking at the results team USA has been showing at under 18, under 20 tournaments in the last few years. They've arguably surpassed Canada in terms of player development. Not to mention the elite level Americans that have come into the NHL in the last 5 years.

[chippa13 1844]

You are confusing demand with tournament results. The only tournament the US public cares about is the Olympics. 

As for USA Hockey support, it should be equal for the men's and women's national teams. That said, I still think that would fall well short of Billie Jean's comment about a part time job. With the top men's team those players are already "paid" to train by their pro, college or junior teams. While opportunities are increasing with women's college programs and the NWHL, being a world class athlete is still a "part time job".

[Skoda10 14]

9 hours ago, JR Boucicaut said:

@Skoda10 - I'm so sorry!  I somehow deleted your post!

I thought I was deleting one of mine.

If you can repost it, that would be great.  I was trying to reply to it.

You had said that you'd rather have your USAH money go towards grassroots programs.  I laughed at that - not at you, because that was the whole intention of us paying USAH.

Questions to the Canadians though - is there a similar structure there?  Is there a membership fee to Hockey Canada?

No problem - that was the gist of it, I'd rather USAH not cave and increase the compensation that they provide, as I'd rather have them not provide so much support to the men's or women's national teams. Instead have them using our fees (mine and my daughter's) on a more local level.

To me it seems that programs like it starts with a stick and try hockey for free day would have a better payoff getting kids (including girls) to play hockey than one more potential medal most of America and especially children just getting into sports won't have any idea we won.

 

[chippa13 1844]

I said it earlier, the men who play in the worlds are essentially "paid" by their pro/college/junior teams to train during non-tournament times. The support offered by USAH should be equal but that won't mean a full time paycheck for women from Olympics to Olympics. 

[KennyLoggins 5]

@JunkyardAthletic as much as it has annoyed me to listen to all the men weigh in as experts on this topic, in social media, at the rink, and in my own home, I have not agreed with one so wholeheartedly. Each point you made was spot on. Thank you for sharing the insight.

[adam14 182]

At the end of the day it still comes down to the fact that no man playing hockey representing USA expects a paycheque from them to carry them from one game to the next. They don't solely play for team USA, nor do the women, so why should they be getting compensated as if that were the case? 

Sure, there is less money in women's hockey but at the end of the day that reflects the demand and the level of competition. There's a reason their professional league is struggling, the demand isn't there. Again, not taking anything away from the women because they are highly skilled athletes but they can't seriously expect that kind of compensation when there is no benefit to support it by USA hockey. 

The majority of these girls are also playing NCAA but passed that there's no reason they should hold USA hockey accountable for support that the men are getting from their respective pro teams. Just because that isn't available to girls is no reason why USA hockey should have to pick up the slack. 

The reason they have a USNDTP is because at every level they can generate revenue and at the end of the day that's all they care about. Best believe if that were the case with women's hockey they would push that agenda as hard as they could. In Canada, at least in Ontario there is a women's junior hockey league because the demand is there within geographical reason. Not the case in the US. Nobody cares about women's hockey except the 1% that is somehow involved or attached to it. 

[DarkStar50 679]

3 hours ago, adam14 said:

"At the end of the day it still comes down to the fact that no man playing hockey representing USA expects a paycheque from them to carry them from one game to the next. They don't solely play for team USA, nor do the women, so why should they be getting compensated as if that were the case?" 

Do you believe the $1000/month in an Olympic year only is acceptable? How much ice time and sticks will that care of?

"Sure, there is less money in women's hockey but at the end of the day that reflects the demand and the level of competition. There's a reason their professional league is struggling, the demand isn't there. Again, not taking anything away from the women because they are highly skilled athletes but they can't seriously expect that kind of compensation when there is no benefit to support it by USA hockey."

Perhaps the benefit is the exposure USA Hockey gets from the Women's team winning a medal in every tournament they compete in. Perhaps this benefit is motivation for more young girls and women to get interested in hockey. 

"The majority of these girls are also playing NCAA but passed that there's no reason they should hold USA hockey accountable for support that the men are getting from their respective pro teams. Just because that isn't available to girls is no reason why USA hockey should have to pick up the slack."

If the NDTP players get the benefit of training, billet families, high school education arranged, vendor sponsored equipment, travel to games at little to no cost why aren't the women(not girls) given/offered the same benefits? Isn't USA Hockey reaping the rewards of the Women's team success through increased enrollment of young girls and women players starting to play hockey?  

"The reason they have a USNDTP is because at every level they can generate revenue and at the end of the day that's all they care about. Best believe if that were the case with women's hockey they would push that agenda as hard as they could. In Canada, at least in Ontario there is a women's junior hockey league because the demand is there within geographical reason. Not the case in the US. Nobody cares about women's hockey except the 1% that is somehow involved or attached to it."

How does the USNDTP "generate revenue"? It's more like every beer league player has to sign up for USA Hockey(I have to register just to play pick-up with my buddies every Friday night) in order to generate the revenues for USA Hockey to support USNDTP. If USA Hockey is supposed to be a not for profit organization, how come they are a .com and not .org???? Take the money and spread it to the Women's team. They have more consistent success than the Men's teams anyway. 

 

[chippa13 1844]

In the last 25 some years that I've been playing beer leagues I haven't been in one that was USA Hockey affiliated or paid USA Hockey dues.

[JR Boucicaut 3797]

Most are, though.

[JR Boucicaut 3797]

Hockey Canada fielded a National Team that played season-round in the 80s and 90s. Same intention as NTDP, but senior.   Did those players get compensated?

 

[UCMnumber8 32]

http://www.espn.com/espnw/sports/article/18962490/usa-hockey-women-national-team-continue-negotiations?addata=espn:frontpage I know it states that they broke talks off without an agreement, but it sounds like both sides are making progress and are optimistic about this going forward. 

[KennyLoggins 5]

https://www.instagram.com/p/BR5hsbqBjRX/

^Bozek's instagram this am. Pretty much said the same thing. I'll be curious to see how, outside of financially supporting the top level female players, USA Hockey will improve girls hockey at a grassroots level after this.

Let me hold my breath. 

[marka 526]

Howdy,

Thought this was a pretty good column, and it sums up many of my feelings on the subject.

 

http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2017/3/20/14938214/toronto-maple-leafs-auston-matthews-makenna-newkirk-case-against-usa-hockey-boston-college-women

 

To me, that does a great job of describing why the word "equality" gets thrown around in stuff like this, vs. just "deserve".

Mark

[Skoda10 14]

While I agree that an NHL team in a non traditional market drives new interest I don't agree that the national teams have the same effect. 

I disagree with articles like these because I just don't think the goal of youth hockey should be a college education or professional career, it should be more people that enjoy playing and watching hockey.

That's what drives my arguement of no additional funding now, less funding for the boys & men's teams later, and more actual growing of the game.

It would be nice if USAH had some competition like AAU, but I saw an old article somewhere (that I can't find now of course) about why they can't or won't start a hockey program. 

I just googled AAU, so the article I'm recalling must have been ancient since they do appear to have an ice hockey program in some areas

[chippa13 1844]

You weren't a kid in 1980, were you?

[Skoda10 14]

Nope I was baking in the oven until summer of 1980. That was a unique situation that isn't likely to repeat itself.

I'm just saying things we adults find important or think drive participation aren't always actually the reasons.

I'm also straying way off the original topic of this thread, so I apologize.

[chippa13 1844]

I don't think this is really straying too far though. When judging compensation I think you have to take impact into account. I think we saw a large uptick in female participation after the Nagano games. I also believe we're starting to see a similar trickle down effect from women's college programs and the NWHL.