US Women's Team Won't Play 2017 WC

[Gummer12 134]

The Women's team was supposed to have a Training Camp in Traverse City, MI this weekend.  That has now been cancelled.  

Edit Update: http://www.record-eagle.com/sports/local_sports/team-usa-traverse-city-training-camp-cancelled/article_8124b4c4-584e-5d21-ae6a-473f609d16a7.html

[Skoda10 14]

17 hours ago, chippa13 said:

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.

I like hard data, so I'd want to see female participation numbers for a few years leading up to 1998 and for a few years after. Then I'd want a way to study if it was from the gold medal or if it's just the natural progression of society.

When my daughter says she's going to play for the Canadiens I don't tell her she can't, and I think a few decades ago parents would have said girls don't play with boys.

Overall we'd get a better return on our investment in USAH by growing bottom up than trickle down.

Oh no, that makes me sound like the stereotypical new age Vermonter, maybe moving back here has had an effect on me ;-)

[marka 526]

Howdy,

11 hours ago, Gummer12 said:

The Women's team was supposed to have a Training Camp in Traverse City, MI this weekend.  That has now been cancelled.  

 

Darn.  Sounded like on Monday, there were hopes they'd be able to come to an agreement quickly enough for that.

Hopefully things haven't stalled out and USA Hockey will treat them right.

Mark

[chippa13 1844]

4 hours ago, Skoda10 said:

I like hard data, so I'd want to see female participation numbers for a few years leading up to 1998 and for a few years after. Then I'd want a way to study if it was from the gold medal or if it's just the natural progression of society.

When my daughter says she's going to play for the Canadiens I don't tell her she can't, and I think a few decades ago parents would have said girls don't play with boys.

Overall we'd get a better return on our investment in USAH by growing bottom up than trickle down.

Oh no, that makes me sound like the stereotypical new age Vermonter, maybe moving back here has had an effect on me ;-)

Actually, a few decades ago the only way girls could play hockey was with the boys. The town I grew up in had one of the first all girl hockey teams in the area and that wasn't until the early 80's.

If you take a little girl to a men's hockey game she may decide she likes to watch hockey. If you take the same girl to a women's hockey game she may decide she wants to play hockey.

[proth0303 29]

8 minutes ago, chippa13 said:

If you take a little girl to a men's hockey game she may decide she likes to watch hockey. If you take the same girl to a women's hockey game she may decide she wants to play hockey.

This is probably the best comment I've ever heard regarding having separate male and female teams. :)  

[Skoda10 14]

1 hour ago, chippa13 said:

Actually, a few decades ago the only way girls could play hockey was with the boys. The town I grew up in had one of the first all girl hockey teams in the area and that wasn't until the early 80's.

That was what I was trying to say, now parents would say to the girls sure go play, and youth leagues have girls or coed programs, that's the progress of society.

The more I think about this it seems it's a chicken or the egg situation, do you need something for females to aspire to in order to drive interest, or does increased accessibility and participation lead to creating the elite level players?

[chippa13 1844]

I don't think it is chicken-egg at all. There needs to be that high level exhibition to drum up interest. For example, before Bobby Orr burst onto the scene there was only a handful of hockey rinks in the New England area. After he arrived there was a rink building boon that noone had ever seen before or since. Grass roots programs work the best when there is some pinnacle to point at.

[IPv6Freely 2093]

39 minutes ago, chippa13 said:

I don't think it is chicken-egg at all. There needs to be that high level exhibition to drum up interest. For example, before Bobby Orr burst onto the scene there was only a handful of hockey rinks in the New England area. After he arrived there was a rink building boon that noone had ever seen before or since. Grass roots programs work the best when there is some pinnacle to point at.

And look at what 99 did for SoCal. I'm blown away by how much ice there is here. 

[IPv6Freely 2093]

50 minutes ago, Skoda10 said:

That was what I was trying to say, now parents would say to the girls sure go play, and youth leagues have girls or coed programs, that's the progress of society.

The more I think about this it seems it's a chicken or the egg situation, do you need something for females to aspire to in order to drive interest, or does increased accessibility and participation lead to creating the elite level players?

Regarding co-ed, I actually had this discussion with... somebody... a few years ago at a Winterfest. The issue (as they explained to me) is that you can put the girls and boys together just fine until they hit puberty, at which point the boys get bigger and stronger much earlier/quicker, so they separate them at that age. The girls end up going into a girls-only program (which as we have discussed at length in this thread is nowhere near the same level/standard, and usually has no body checking allowed) and by the time they catch up in size/strength they are far behind in skill and aren't prepared for the checking. This is of course very generalized logic that doesn't apply everywhere and to everyone (always exceptions) but the general concept made a lot of sense to me. So for the love of god please don't try to pick the entire theory apart. 

Not that that helps explain or fix the girls hockey programs, it just explains why they need to exist in the first place (versus just staying co-ed the whole way). I'd love for gender in sports to disappear completely. Hockey? Mixed. Golf? Mixed. 100M sprint at the olympics? Mixed. 

[DarkStar50 679]

8 hours ago, Skoda10 said:

That was what I was trying to say, now parents would say to the girls sure go play, and youth leagues have girls or coed programs, that's the progress of society.

The more I think about this it seems it's a chicken or the egg situation, do you need something for females to aspire to in order to drive interest, or does increased accessibility and participation lead to creating the elite level players?

Why can't you have both?

 

[EJB 488]

It's an interesting conversation, chicken/egg, USWNT/ground roots.  

As the father of a girl that plays on both travel boys & girls teams, I 100% support the Women's stance here & I love that my girl has role models in the game.  She tells me she wants to play for Wisconsin, know why....? 

[Skoda10 14]

8 hours ago, DarkStar50 said:

Why can't you have both?

 

I think we could have both, but we don't have enough going to increasing participation, so giving more to the elite teams is a poor decision to me.

It's great that some places have NHL teams to drive youth participation, and that a women's pro league would have that same effect on some cities but that's not going to get us bigger than where we are at today.

Instead of buying/running one rink in Michigan, why not give out grants to improve/build rinks across America? 

Use some of the national team money instead for a program where USAH is out in PE classes with free sticks during hockey week in America.

Start funding some real research into what keeps kids from playing, and what keeps parents from signing their kids up.

If USAH thinks they can do it all then go for it, I'm not anti-women's pro hockey, or anti-women's national team. I think USAH had strayed from their purpose and this situation will lead to more neglect of higher numbers playing and more focus on just the national development programs.

[Skoda10 14]

6 hours ago, EJB said:

It's an interesting conversation, chicken/egg, USWNT/ground roots.  

As the father of a girl that plays on both travel boys & girls teams, I 100% support the Women's stance here & I love that my girl has role models in the game.  She tells me she wants to play for Wisconsin, know why....? 

I don't know why, is that the part of the discussion I'm missing?

When she first signed up for hockey though was it because of Wisconsin, or did she start playing and then find more motivation or confirmation of her choice from Wisconsin?

[IPv6Freely 2093]

8 hours ago, EJB said:

It's an interesting conversation, chicken/egg, USWNT/ground roots.  

As the father of a girl that plays on both travel boys & girls teams, I 100% support the Women's stance here & I love that my girl has role models in the game.  She tells me she wants to play for Wisconsin, know why....? 

She likes cheese? 

[EJB 488]

3 hours ago, Skoda10 said:

I don't know why, is that the part of the discussion I'm missing?

When she first signed up for hockey though was it because of Wisconsin, or did she start playing and then find more motivation or confirmation of her choice from Wisconsin?

She started playing because she grew up at a rink watching her brother.  

[EJB 488]

1 hour ago, IPv6Freely said:

She likes cheese? 

Correct.

[adam14 182]

On March 23, 2017 at 1:55 PM, IPv6Freely said:

Regarding co-ed, I actually had this discussion with... somebody... a few years ago at a Winterfest. The issue (as they explained to me) is that you can put the girls and boys together just fine until they hit puberty, at which point the boys get bigger and stronger much earlier/quicker, so they separate them at that age. The girls end up going into a girls-only program (which as we have discussed at length in this thread is nowhere near the same level/standard, and usually has no body checking allowed) and by the time they catch up in size/strength they are far behind in skill and aren't prepared for the checking. This is of course very generalized logic that doesn't apply everywhere and to everyone (always exceptions) but the general concept made a lot of sense to me. So for the love of god please don't try to pick the entire theory apart. 

Not that that helps explain or fix the girls hockey programs, it just explains why they need to exist in the first place (versus just staying co-ed the whole way). I'd love for gender in sports to disappear completely. Hockey? Mixed. Golf? Mixed. 100M sprint at the olympics? Mixed. 

100 meter freestyle at the olympics, just based on your theory. The women who won medals wouldn't have even qualified for the final heat against the men at Rio

I do agree that women should be playing hockey and there should be more focus on youth development. However until there is enough demand and the sport reaches a higher level not just in the US but internationally as well. In the last couple years there's been a women's junior league that was brought to the GTA because before girls were done at U18 or midget age here. 

Why isn't there a USNDP for girls? Cause they have nobody to play against because the talent pool isn't big enough nor is the field of competition. U18 and U20 play Canada cause every other team gets shit pumped. And walzing through games winning by double digits isn't exactly going to help your development either. There's a bigger picture to women's hockey as a whole that the team is pitchforking USAH for. 

[EJB 488]

Appears that USA Hockey's attempt to recruit from the NWHL & NCAA Women's hockey to field a replacement team for the Worlds, has fallen on deaf ears.  

[JR Boucicaut 3802]

Let's compare apples to apples:

http://globalnews.ca/news/3328637/commentary-hockey-canada-got-it-right-and-the-u-s-women-want-a-piece-of-the-action/

 

[adam14 182]

45 minutes ago, JR Boucicaut said:

Let's compare apples to apples:

http://globalnews.ca/news/3328637/commentary-hockey-canada-got-it-right-and-the-u-s-women-want-a-piece-of-the-action/

 

I mentioned this in an earlier post. Their funding isnt directly from Hockey Canada, it is from the athlete assistance program for high competitive athletes. 

[JR Boucicaut 3802]

So, the article's wrong?

[adam14 182]

18 minutes ago, JR Boucicaut said:

So, the article's wrong?

The article is not wrong in the sense that girls off the hockey team get monthly funding, however they don't do a very good job elaborating where that funding comes from. 

Their funding comes from the same place as every other high level athlete in Canada. http://canada.pch.gc.ca/eng/1414514343755

[DarkStar50 679]

On ‎3‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 6:26 AM, Skoda10 said:

I think we could have both, but we don't have enough going to increasing participation, so giving more to the elite teams is a poor decision to me.

It's great that some places have NHL teams to drive youth participation, and that a women's pro league would have that same effect on some cities but that's not going to get us bigger than where we are at today.

Instead of buying/running one rink in Michigan, why not give out grants to improve/build rinks across America? 

Use some of the national team money instead for a program where USAH is out in PE classes with free sticks during hockey week in America.

Start funding some real research into what keeps kids from playing, and what keeps parents from signing their kids up.

If USAH thinks they can do it all then go for it, I'm not anti-women's pro hockey, or anti-women's national team. I think USAH had strayed from their purpose and this situation will lead to more neglect of higher numbers playing and more focus on just the national development programs.

The majority of rinks are private businesses. There is no way USAH can get involved with that idea.

The way things are going with youth football enrollment numbers going down due to concussion awareness, it will only be a matter of time before youth hockey parents start to think twice about starting or continuing in the game.

[DarkStar50 679]

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/hockey/usa-hockey-not-luck-finding-replacement-players-article-1.3008842

USAH losing the war on publicity too.

[chocks86 82]

I'm all for the Women's national team asking for equal benefits other than paying them a "living wage" or yearly salary. USA Hockey should pay for development programs, equipment, travel and lodging, and pay them a stipend when they are away from their regular everyday jobs but paying them a yearly salary so they can quit their day job and practice all year to only play a few games in the World Championships and the Olympics every four years is, in my opinion, a little ridiculous. Playing for your country in tournaments and the Olympic Games is a privilege and not your career. And unfortunately, until women's hockey is as popular as men's hockey, which in reality will likely never happen, as almost all women's professional sports leagues have never really taken off, they players for the women's national team will have to find some other way to make a living other than asking USA Hockey to pay for it.