NHL not participating in 2018 Olympics

[theohall]

While disappointed as a fan, the folks losing their mind on Twitter seem to ignore certain facts. Everyone is blaming the Bettman and the NHL Board of Governors/Owners. It just shows how little they've read about the issue. The NHLPA was against it also, because of the impact it would have on shortening the schedule by taking a 17-day break in February. The schedule is already compressed because of the mandatory 5-day breaks teams get now. So imagine teams playing 5 games in 7 days multiple times to make up for the time lost. Fans were polled. US fans 73% Canadian fans 52% against disrupting the NHL schedule in mid-February for the Olympics.

So who is actually for this? NHL, NHL BoG/Owners, NHLPA, most fans - all against. What's the big deal if the vast majority is against it? Who does this hurt? Reporters covering the Olympics, NBC without NHL Players in the Olympics since NHL games will be competing against them, and a minority of fans. So what?

My disappointment is only because the NHL players make the Olympic games more enjoyable. But I'm not up in arms at the NHL knowing all the facts. Now we will just see KHL professionals playing against the US and Canadian juniors/career minor leaguers.

[glen a richter]

Good. Call me old school or traditionalist or whatever but the Olympics are for amateurs. If another country wants to throw their equivalent to pros up against our amateurs then so be it. It worked out for us in 1980 and even if we predictably end up getting our asses kicked, at least we did it the right way.

[Toasted Oates]

I don't care either way but the Caps owner has already said he won't keep his guys from playing. So that would make it pretty hard for other owners to tell their guys no. Could be a messy situation.

Also, the Olympics are ideal for showcasing your star players. People who don't necessarily follow sports love the Olympics. Maybe someone sees a player they like and decides to buy a ticket to a NHL game and you've made a fan.

If the league is trying to reach the more casual sport consumer, this isn't the way to do it.

[SamJunior]

Good. Call me old school or traditionalist or whatever but the Olympics are for amateurs. If another country wants to throw their equivalent to pros up against our amateurs then so be it. It worked out for us in 1980 and even if we predictably end up getting our asses kicked, at least we did it the right way.

Actually there won't be too many amateur players if any. Nations will throw in the players who are pros but not good enough to make it to the NHL. Canada and USA will probably have some players from colleges on their rosters, but there will surely be professional players who are playing in Europe and the KHL.
European teams such as Sweden, Finland, Russia, Czech Rep. Switzerland, will fill up their rosters from the KHL and their national leagues. "Smaller" hockey nations (like Germany, Norway, etc.) won't get affected too much because they don't really have players in the NHL, so they will be able to use their strongest rosters.
But still, the Olympic champions will be one of the "Big Six" (the Swiss guys just aren't good enough to count them here) teams, but the quality of the games won't reach the level of a tournament with NHL players.
I'm a bit sad, because the Olympics occur only once in every 4 years, and it was the only opportunity watch these nations face each other with the best possible rosters. But on the other hand I can totally understand the background of the decision.

[cardsfan04]

I don't like this. I think they should let the NHL players play. I think it's a missed opportunity for marketing or gaining fans. But, that's not really my reason for disliking this announcement. I just prefer to see the NHL players in the Olympics. I'll still watch, but dislike this announcement. It's more enjoyable to me knowing the players playing.

[gaijin]

I don't like this. I think they should let the NHL players play. I think it's a missed opportunity for marketing or gaining fans. But, that's not really my reason for disliking this announcement. I just prefer to see the NHL players in the Olympics. I'll still watch, but dislike this announcement. It's more enjoyable to me knowing the players playing.

I'll agree that it adds interest (and viewership) to the games. Without Crosby and Ovechkin, does Canada vs. Russia draw as much interest?

[Kerfuffle]

I'm glad the NHL is done with this - I never liked the compressed schedule. As a season ticket holder I hated having 17 days off in the middle of February when there's nothing else to watch at that time. Yes the 2010 game was exciting but in 2014 the USA didn't even make it to the final game. And I still remember the disaster of 1998 with Nagano. The most telling reason why they canceled this is that this is the first Olympics in which the NHL would have had to pick up all the cost (travel, insurance, etc). In the past the IOC covered it for them. That alone is the dealbreaker.

[cardsfan04]

I think Tarasenko's comments on this were spot on. I'm paraphrasing, but he basically said, "It's really disappointing. As a kid growing up, working toward a career in hockey, you have 2 goals: to win the Stanley Cup and to win a gold medal. Right now, we are about to try to win a Stanley Cup, so we shouldn't worry about this until the Summer. At that point, we have contracts to honor, but it's really disappointing if we are unable to go."

I get it from the NHL side too though. I don't know the details of expenses, but I've gotta think at least as much of a concern as that is that if a player gets injured in the Olympics, a team it negatively impacts the NHL team which, like it or not, is a business. I don't like the decision, but the business side of things is a reasonable concern.

[Kerfuffle]

I think Tarasenko's comments on this were spot on. I'm paraphrasing, but he basically said, "It's really disappointing. As a kid growing up, working toward a career in hockey, you have 2 goals: to win the Stanley Cup and to win a gold medal. Right now, we are about to try to win a Stanley Cup, so we shouldn't worry about this until the Summer. At that point, we have contracts to honor, but it's really disappointing if we are unable to go."

I get it from the NHL side too though. I don't know the details of expenses, but I've gotta think at least as much of a concern as that is that if a player gets injured in the Olympics, a team it negatively impacts the NHL team which, like it or not, is a business. I don't like the decision, but the business side of things is a reasonable concern.

The article I read the other day named 5 players that had season ending injuries after going to the Olympics. That's always a concern - that you lose your top guy and blow any chance of winning the Stanley Cup.

[SamJunior]

The most telling reason why they canceled this is that this is the first Olympics in which the NHL would have had to pick up all the cost (travel, insurance, etc). In the past the IOC covered it for them. That alone is the dealbreaker.

This shouldn't be a dealbreaker since IIHF stated that they would pick up the costs of traveling and insurance if IOC refuses to do it.
From what i have read about this whole story, the real dealbreaker is that the NHL don't like the idea of having a 3 weeks break in February (mainly for business reasons).

[theohall]

The most telling reason why they canceled this is that this is the first Olympics in which the NHL would have had to pick up all the cost (travel, insurance, etc). In the past the IOC covered it for them. That alone is the dealbreaker.

This shouldn't be a dealbreaker since IIHF stated that they would pick up the costs of traveling and insurance if IOC refuses to do it.
From what i have read about this whole story, the real dealbreaker is that the NHL don't like the idea of having a 3 weeks break in February (mainly for business reasons).

It's not just the NHL who doesn't like it. While the NHLPA made their "official announcement," the majority of players, as in those who won't be playing in the Olympics, don't like that break either. They don't practice or play games; their schedules are massively compressed throughout the season, moreso now with the mandated 5-day breaks which would be considered separate from the Olympics; and when the rest of the players return, not only are the games massively compressed, the teams aren't really game ready for the last 6 weeks of the season during playoff pushes. And this doesn't even consider the injury angle or the wear and tear this puts on teams who did make it deep in the playoffs the prior season. Players didn't really have issues with the World Cup, because those games were played when players would be playing exhibition games anyway. The Olympics are all extra games mid-season and it's the star players at risk.'

We are going to see the media reports from guys like Toews, Ovechkin, etc - the stars. You won't see the media reports from the guys against it who don't play in the Olympics - the 3rd and 4th line guys who do all the grind work during the season that benefit nothing from their teams going to the Olympics.

If the Winter Olympics were in September, instead of February, this whole thing would be a non-issue.

[cardsfan04]

The most telling reason why they canceled this is that this is the first Olympics in which the NHL would have had to pick up all the cost (travel, insurance, etc). In the past the IOC covered it for them. That alone is the dealbreaker.

This shouldn't be a dealbreaker since IIHF stated that they would pick up the costs of traveling and insurance if IOC refuses to do it.
From what i have read about this whole story, the real dealbreaker is that the NHL don't like the idea of having a 3 weeks break in February (mainly for business reasons).

It's not just the NHL who doesn't like it. While the NHLPA made their "official announcement," the majority of players, as in those who won't be playing in the Olympics, don't like that break either. They don't practice or play games; their schedules are massively compressed throughout the season, moreso now with the mandated 5-day breaks which would be considered separate from the Olympics; and when the rest of the players return, not only are the games massively compressed, the teams aren't really game ready for the last 6 weeks of the season during playoff pushes. And this doesn't even consider the injury angle or the wear and tear this puts on teams who did make it deep in the playoffs the prior season. Players didn't really have issues with the World Cup, because those games were played when players would be playing exhibition games anyway. The Olympics are all extra games mid-season and it's the star players at risk.'

We are going to see the media reports from guys like Toews, Ovechkin, etc - the stars. You won't see the media reports from the guys against it who don't play in the Olympics - the 3rd and 4th line guys who do all the grind work during the season that benefit nothing from their teams going to the Olympics.

If the Winter Olympics were in September, instead of February, this whole thing would be a non-issue.

I can buy a drop in quality of play immediately following the Olympics. I think teams not being game ready for 6 weeks following the Olympics is a bit of an exaggeration though. If teams take more than a week to get up to speed, that's on them.

[theohall]

What happens is the compressed schedule doesn't give players the time they normally have to overcome the minor injuries which aren't reported and a net-drop in quality of play happens over that full 6 weeks. We just don't know Player X has a bad back, but is playing through it.

Aside - did any of you know Perron had been playing for months with a back issue that never really stopped bothering him until about 2 weeks ago - per Kelly Chase.

[cardsfan04]

I hear ya on the compressed schedule. There's some validity there I guess. But, if in April, a player said, "We're not game ready because of the Olympic break," he'd get roasted for it, and rightfully so.