NHL players in 98 Olympics (from USA TODAY sports feed)
Michael Novean
NHL PLAYERS MAY GO TO OLYMPICS:
NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman and the International Ice Hockey
Federation agreed Thursday on a three-year deal that could open
the door for NHL players to compete in the 1998 Winter Olympics at
Nagano, Japan. The NHL wants the Olympic tournament to last less
than two weeks to minimize the time the league is shut down.
Sounds cool to me.
--
* Michael Novean : Virginia Polythechic Institute *
* nov...@vt.edu : and State University *
* nov...@apollo.aoe.vt.edu : Aerospace and Ocean Engineering *
Chris Cushing
>I pulled this from USA Today sports list:
>
>NHL PLAYERS MAY GO TO OLYMPICS:
> NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman and the International Ice Hockey
>Federation agreed Thursday on a three-year deal that could open
>the door for NHL players to compete in the 1998 Winter Olympics at
>Nagano, Japan. The NHL wants the Olympic tournament to last less
>than two weeks to minimize the time the league is shut down.
>Sounds cool to me.
Michael
I don't agree that this is cool.
1) Does hockey need to be like basketball's Deam Team 1 and 2.
I wouldn`t be able to stand it.
2) The Olympics should be for non-pros. I like to watch the olympics to see
new talent and new faces (domestic and international).
3) We don't need our pro stars injured while playing for "national pride"
That is what the World Championships are for (and they are played in the
off season if I'm not mistaken)
4) And for a selfish reason, I don't feel I could last 2 weeks without the ferver
of the NHL.
********************* FROM A FELLOW HOKIE ENGINEER (CpE) *******************
+++++ What is new in the `BURG --- any TECH football news +++++++++++++++
Chris Cushing
Andrew H Baumann
Excerpts from netnews.rec.sport.hockey: 1-Aug-94 Re: NHL players in 98
Olymp.. by Chris Cus...@ssd.comm.m
I don't agree Chris. If pros played in the olympics it would be nothing
like the basketball Dream Teams. In bball the US in clearly dominate,
it is not like that in hockey.
Canada would have the best team, but the US, Russia, Czech Republic and
Sweden all would have a shot at beating them. Wow, the action would be
so exciting, watching Gretzky, Yserman, Lindros, Recchi, Sakic,
Robitaille, Blake, MacInnis, , S. Stevens, Coffey, Belfore, Potvin go up
against Roenick, Modono, Hull , K. Stevens, Mullen, Housely, Leetch,
Chleios, Richter, Vanbeisbrook (Sp) or Fedorov, Bure, Mogilny, Zubov,
Irbe (is he Russian?). That would be great.
Andrew
Steve Cook
paraphrase some reporter....
The olympics, to win the olympic gold, should be something that a child
grows up dreaming about. It should be a dream come true, a reward for
a childhood of training.
NHL players, no disrespect intended, would not show the same emotion,
would not look upon the olympics as the cumulation of their dreams.
It just would'nt hold the same meaning, nor the emotions. The olympics
is the last step before the pro's for most sports...let's keep it that way.
Steve
Scott Jeffrey
While this is probably the "proper" way to view the Olympics, it simply
does not reflect reality. Professional soccer, tennis and basketball players
compete in the Olympics. Some other "amateur" athletes such as track
and field competitors are quasi-professional. In most cases, the only true
amateur athletes in the Olympics compete in sports for which there are no
professional leagues.
Why should hockey be different?
Scott Jeffrey
University of Alberta
sjef...@re.ualberta.ca
Go Leafs Go!!!!
27 years is long enough to wait!!
(but I guess it will have to be 28)
Jerry D Smith 14617
Chris Cushing <cus...@ssd.comm.mot.com> wrote:
>In article <31b95h$a...@solaris.cc.vt.edu> (Michael Novean) writes:
>>
>>NHL PLAYERS MAY GO TO OLYMPICS:
>> NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman and the International Ice Hockey
>>Federation agreed Thursday on a three-year deal that could open
>>the door for NHL players to compete in the 1998 Winter Olympics at
>>Nagano, Japan. The NHL wants the Olympic tournament to last less
>>than two weeks to minimize the time the league is shut down.
>>Sounds cool to me.
>
>Michael
>I don't agree that this is cool.
>1) Does hockey need to be like basketball's Deam Team 1 and 2.
> I wouldn`t be able to stand it.
Well, I disagree that it would be like Dream Team 1 and 2.
In the case of hockey, many countries would put together
competitive "Dream Teams". I would imagine Canada would be
the favorite with the US, Russia and some of the other
Eastern Europe teams being just as competitive. Now this may
leave some countries (France, Italy, Germany, Japan(?)) out
in the cold, but at least it wouldn't be just one country.
>2) The Olympics should be for non-pros. I like to watch the olympics to see
> new talent and new faces (domestic and international).
There have been pros in the Olympics for years, just not those
who compete in the NHL & NBA (Until last Olympics). The track & Field
participants have been paid for years, tennis was all pros last Olympics
as have some of the hockey players who weren't in the NHL.
>3) We don't need our pro stars injured while playing for "national pride"
> That is what the World Championships are for (and they are played in
> the off season if I'm not mistaken)
I do agree with this and the next statement, however.
>4) And for a selfish reason, I don't feel I could last 2 weeks
> without the ferver of the NHL.
>Chris Cushing
Jerry Smith
jsm...@mcl.bdm.com
Go Caps!!
Maybe George Mason University will get a hockey Team? (Yeah, right)
Steve Cook
That DAMN reality! I know when you apply reality, the views expressed seem
somewhat nieve. Yes, _most_ olympic events have been infiltrated by the
"pro's", but for the most part, hockey has remained somewhat untouched. I'm
sure not for ideology reasons, but primarily scheduling conflicts.
Let's keep it that way. Let's keep olympic hockey a game played by young
man who are striving for a dream, not to increase marketing appeal.
I know, I'm a dreamer...
Steve
Vlad Rutenburg
>Well, I disagree that it would be like Dream Team 1 and 2.
>In the case of hockey, many countries would put together
>competitive "Dream Teams". I would imagine Canada would be
>the favorite with the US, Russia and some of the other
>Eastern Europe teams being just as competitive. Now this may
>leave some countries (France, Italy, Germany, Japan(?)) out
>in the cold, but at least it wouldn't be just one country.
1-2. Canada, Russia
3-4. Sweden, Czechoslovakia
5.USA
6. Finland.
Just for your information...
And, no, Sweden is not part of Eastern Europe.
>> That is what the World Championships are for (and they are played in
>> the off season if I'm not mistaken)
>I do agree with this and the next statement, however.
>
>>4) And for a selfish reason, I don't feel I could last 2 weeks
>> without the ferver of the NHL.
the Rangers end up with 120 points or only 116? Can't stand the tension!
No doubt: watching another meaningless regular season NHL game sure provides
more excitement than watching Team USA go against Canada and Russia in the
Olympics. :)
Vlad Rutenburg
>That DAMN reality! I know when you apply reality, the views expressed seem
>somewhat nieve. Yes, _most_ olympic events have been infiltrated by the
>"pro's", but for the most part, hockey has remained somewhat untouched. I'm
>sure not for ideology reasons, but primarily scheduling conflicts.
>Let's keep it that way. Let's keep olympic hockey a game played by young
>man who are striving for a dream, not to increase marketing appeal.
are banned from playing in the Olympics. That way I, a young man striving
for a dream, can win an Olympic gold. :)
Kenneth Miller
CC> Michael
CC> I don't agree that this is cool.
CC> 1) Does hockey need to be like basketball's Deam Team 1 and 2.
CC> I wouldn`t be able to stand it.
CC> 2) The Olympics should be for non-pros. I like to watch the olympics
CC> to see new talent and new faces (domestic and international).
CC> 3) We don't need our pro stars injured while playing for "national
CC> pride" That is what the World Championships are for (and they are
CC> played in the off season if I'm not mistaken)
CC> 4) And for a selfish reason, I don't feel I could last 2 weeks without
CC> the ferver of the NHL.
Chris, the other countries have their BEST players compete in the
Olympics. Thats what the Olympics are for! The only problem I have with
the hockey players in the Olympics is that it is DURING the SEASON! Unlike
basketball, the hockey players would be in the middle of a season.
Why shouldn't we put our best players in a Olympic uniform? I don't
know if your sick of having the USA and Canada (US mostly) being ripped in
half in the winter Olympics. When is the last time either won the most golds?
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
Steve Cook
It's different now. I agree, until recently, North American teams sent
boys to play against the world's best. But now, _most_ of the world's
best are playing in the NHL and not the Olympics. The parity, perhaps
even the fairness at the International level has never been better.
As I've said in earlier posts, hockey has stepped, however inadvertently,
into a real opportunity to maintain the "amatuer" theme in the olympics.
Steve
Eric Masson
>
>Presumably the world ratings are:
>
>1-2. Canada, Russia
>3-4. Sweden, Czechoslovakia
>5.USA
>6. Finland.
I think the ranking would be as follows:
(1) Canada
(2) Finland
(3) USA
(4) Russia or Sweden
(6) Slovenia or Czekoslovakia
(8) Norway
(9) Germany
(10) Italy
(11) France
(12) Poland
Of course this depends on the tournament setup which might force
some teams to meet the better teams before they should and thus
get relegated to a lower rank.
Canada first because at all positions they'll have extreme talent to put
on the ice. Even on the bench.
Finland was very convincing at both the Olympics and the World Championships
and it has a good number of talented NHL players.
Canada was lucky to beat Finland in the Olympics. I think Canada had 5 good
scoring chances and 5 goals against them. The Swedish game was a much
easier one in the final. In my opinion Canada was the third best team
at the Olympics after Finland and then Sweden. Finland can mix with both
teams of North American style and European style. And they rarely score few
goals. In the world championships Finland was on par with the winning
team: Canada. They deserved it just as much as Canada did.
I rank Russia fourth because I have not seen the quality defensemen and
goaltenders that Russia has been capable of putting out in the past.
Maybe they exist but I haven't seen nor heard of them. Don't tell me Zubov
'cause the kid has a long way to go although he is very talented. The
forwards are still there though and Russia is very good at producing them.
Also given the reports on the situation of hockey in Russia I doubt they'll
have the high caliber level of play needed to sustain players of the quality
you are hoping for (1st or 2nd).
I put the US third because of their defense. However they better get themselves
better forwards than Brett Hull if they hope to win anything ! American
hockey has been going at full steam since the miracle on ice and the only
word I can think of is progress.
Swedish hockey is in a bad period in my opinion. Too many prima donnas that
are affraid to get dirty. It's good to have such offensive minded players
wanting to play a fair game but you need a few go-getters/grinders to win it.
However Swedes have excellent strategists and they might surprise anyone.
It seems Swedish hockey has lost importance to soccer from my perspective.
I'm still having a hard time telling which of Slovenia or Czekoslovakia
has a better hockey team. Tough call after what Slovenia showed us at the
last Olympics.
Then Norway of course. Norway can always 'cause surprises, especially against
Sweden or Finland to the great joy of North American teams.
German hockey is a big deception in my book. They should be much better
than they are now. Perhaps some Germans can tell us why this is so ?
France and Italy each have decent teams for the effort put in.
Poland is in the same boat as Germany. What's exactly going on with
Polish hockey ? Seems it is dying.
Salut,
Eric
--
=================================================================
Eric Masson - er...@finnegan.ee.mcgill.ca - FAX: 514 398 4470
=================================================================
Anders Engwall
>Presumably the world ratings are:
>
>1-2. Canada, Russia
>3-4. Sweden, Czechoslovakia
>5.USA
>6. Finland.
I think USA and Finland are better than you think. Czechoslovakia is two
countries these days, btw. I'd say the world rankings is something like
1-2. Canada, Russia
3-7. Sweden, Czechia, Slovakia, USA, Finland
---
Anders Engwall Email: Anders....@eua.ericsson.se
ELLEMTEL Utvecklings AB Voice: +46 8 727 3893
Älvsjö, Sweden Fax: +46 8 727 42 20
endremin saxassa flumen flobollala / feilobasch falljada follidi / flumbasch
Stephane Apabackyj
Czechoslovalia's best playeys were overwhelmingly from what is now
the Czech Republic (except for Statsny sp?). I think that Slovakia would
be a middle of the pack team like the Ukraine.
My rankings would be:
1) Canada
2) Russia
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SMALL GAP
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
3) Sweden
4) U.S.A.
5) Czech Republic
6) Finland
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BIG GAP
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
7) Slovakia
8) Ukraine
9) Germany
10) Switzerland
Cheers,
Stephane Arabackyj,
University of Guelph
Vlad Rutenburg
>In article <xsyzsa...@delphi.com> Vlad Rutenburg <ru...@delphi.com> writes:
>>
>>Presumably the world ratings are:
>>
>>1-2. Canada, Russia
>>3-4. Sweden, Czechoslovakia
>>5.USA
>>6. Finland.
>
>I think the ranking would be as follows:
>
> (1) Canada
> (2) Finland
> (3) USA
> (4) Russia or Sweden
> (6) Slovenia or Czekoslovakia
> (8) Norway
> (9) Germany
>(10) Italy
>(11) France
>(12) Poland
Eric, my rating was based on the relative strength of countries when they
play their best palyers. Yours is based on the minor league tournaments.
How one can put Finland ahead of Russia is beyond me. When did the all-star
Russian team lose to all-star Finnish team in official play?
>
>Then Norway of course. Norway can always 'cause surprises, especially against
>Sweden or Finland to the great joy of North American teams.
Well, unless Norway made some splash in the last World Champs (I didn't
follow), comparing Norway's all-star team to Sweden's all-star team is
like comparing Mexico to Canada.
Question to European fans: is ice hockey at all popular in Norway?
If not, why not?
Nelson Lu
Stephane Apabackyj <sapa...@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>
> My rankings would be:
> 7) Slovakia
> 8) Ukraine
> 9) Germany
> 10) Switzerland
Where would Latvia come into this? If memory serves, Latvia finished second
to Slovakia at a qualification tournament for the Olympics for the newest
members of the IIHF, and supposedly still has a pretty strong team.
===============================================================================
[.sig on vacation]
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (clau...@leland.stanford.edu)
rec.sport.hockey contact for the San Jose Sharks
Vlad Rutenburg
>> 7) Slovakia
>> 8) Ukraine
>> 9) Germany
>> 10) Switzerland
>
>Where would Latvia come into this? If memory serves, Latvia finished second
>to Slovakia at a qualification tournament for the Olympics for the newest
>members of the IIHF, and supposedly still has a pretty strong team.
I think that Byelorus is stronger. In hte future, Latvia is probably going to
drop a little because many of its curent players grew up in Russia. In th
efuture, latvia
would need to develop more top players of the level of Balderis and Irbe (both
native
Latvians).
Doug Yellin
: That DAMN reality! I know when you apply reality, the views expressed seem
: somewhat nieve. Yes, _most_ olympic events have been infiltrated by the
: "pro's", but for the most part, hockey has remained somewhat untouched. I'm
: sure not for ideology reasons, but primarily scheduling conflicts.
: Let's keep it that way. Let's keep olympic hockey a game played by young
: man who are striving for a dream, not to increase marketing appeal.
: I know, I'm a dreamer...
I disagree. Whereas the NBA Dream Team was no fun because it so dominated
the league (while other teams were fully stocked with professionals from
their own nations), the NHL is a truly world league. Forming
international dream teams might create a great olympic balance and
incredible combinations.
(Fetisov, Malakhov and Bure against Lemieux Turgeon and Gretzky against Hull
and Leetch! (forgive me if the nations are not exact, but you get the point))
and would undoubtely boost the game of hockey and help showcase the players.
While I admit that seeing
hungry kids go after the gold is exciting and that nothing for me will
equal the thrill of the '90 USA gold, I think the highter level of play all
around could more than make up for it.
--DougY
TSte...@pmail.miyazaki-mic.ac.jp
Yellin) wrote:
> While I admit that seeing
> hungry kids go after the gold is exciting and that nothing for me will
> equal the thrill of the '90 USA gold, I think the highter level of play all
> around could more than make up for it.
>
> --DougY
Didn't know about the USA gold in '90. I thought
Karl Malden put the Miracle on ice a decade earlier.
But that's just me. Guess you're referring to the
hungry kids of the "Dream Team". Wonder why so many
countries love to hate the USA??
Anyway, all hockey fans know that the only international
tournament worth watching is the Canada Cup, besides the
World Juniors.
-tim