jeff@dciem.UUCP (Jeff Richardson) (08/29/84)
Has anybody been following the Canada Cup news? Does the Canada Cup
get any coverage in the U.S.? I'd like to hear some opinions on it
because as far as I'm concerned, this tournament is THE BIGGIE, the
only hockey tournament where the winner can reasonably lay claim to
the title "world's best". I know it's still a little early for some
people to get into hockey, but how can any hockey fan ignore the Canada Cup?
CANADA: They made a big mistake cutting Rick Vaive. Toronto Maple Leaf
players have been the keys in both of Canada's victories: Paul Henderson
scored the last two winning goals in 1972 and Darryl Sittler got the winner
in '76. The 1981 team lost because it had no Toronto players, and now the
1984 team is doomed because they have made the same mistake. But seriously
folks, the absence of Trottier & Pederson will definitely hurt, but
even without them the list of forwards looks awesome. However, they
may have a weakness behind the blue line. The defence is pretty young
so they'll need good leadership from the veterans, especially Robinson.
Robinson's getting on in years but he showed in the playoffs that he is
capable of providing the type of leadership they need from him, and I
predict that he'll do it again. That, together with the maturation showed by
the Oilers (There are 8 of them on this team) in the playoffs makes me
believe that Canada will regain the title this year. The goaltenders
are solid but not spectacular, but with Tretiak retired, Canada's goalies
will be at least as good as anybody else's.
USSR: Tretiak has retired, taking away their goaltending advantage (Myshkin
is good, but not as consistent or experienced as Tretiak, and Tyzhnykh
has little or no North American experience.) and their key player, defenseman
Vyacheslav Fetisov, and their top scorer from the Olympics, whose name I've
forgotten (Kasatonov maybe), are both injured. I know the Russians have always
come up with able replacements, but I don't care what you say, Tretiak and
Fetisov are the world's best at their positions and they can't be replaced.
This combined with Canada's improvement should land the Soviets second.
CZECHOSLOVAKIA: They've got some good young players, and they could
surprise us and upset the Russians, but I can't see them beating Canada,
especially since the best Czech is probably Peter Stastny, who is playing
for Canada. I'll give them a very close third. (close to 2nd, that is)
USA: There are a lot of good, young American players around today, but
I was surprised to find how many of them refused to join the team. However,
their loss should be offset by the addition of Bryan Trottier, probably
the best all-around centre in the game. He should be enough to keep them
ahead of Sweden and West Germany.
SWEDEN: They have a lot of good players in the NHL, but not very many of
them will be on the Canada Cup team, probably because they were such a
disappointment last time. I can't see the youngsters from back home, with
no North American experience, being able to get them any higher than 5th.
WEST GERMANY: A big mystery. I don't think I've ever seen a German hockey
team play, and I don't think they've ever played in North America except
for the 1980 Olympics. As far as this tourney goes, they're the new boys in
town, and I doubt they'll be able to challenge any of the other countries
that have been coming here for years.
FINLAND: They weren't invited, which I think is an injustice. Tom
Haapanen (watdcsu!haapanen) says that it's because they finished 7th (behind
West Germany) in the world championships. But surely the Canada Cup
organisers must realise that the addition of Jari Kurri and other NHL stars
probably would make them a much better team than the West Germans, who have
no players in the NHL. Also, the reason why the Canada Cup was created
was to give Canada and the U.S. their only chance to put their best up
against the best from the USSR and Czechoslovakia, since most NHL players
are either ineligible or unavailable for the other tournaments. With the
large number of Swedes and Finns in today's NHL, they're in the same boat
as Canada and the U.S., so by prohibiting Finland from playing in the
Canada Cup, we're denying that nation of the only chance it has to field
its best possible hockey team.
--
Jeff Richardson, DCIEM, Toronto (416) 635-2073
{linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd}!utcsrgv!dciem!jeff
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!dciem!jeffrick@ucla-cs.UUCP (09/10/84)
<==== yum yum ====>
Getting hockey coverage in Southern California is difficult to say the
least. Can some of you nothern types give us a rundown on the Canada Cup
tournament? There is the occasional scoring summary in the paper, but that
isn't anything like hearing that player X on the USSR team speared player Y
on the Canadian team. Give us some juicy details!
Rick Gillespie
...!ucbvax!ucla-cs!rick
rick@ucla-cs
"Things are more like they are now than they ever have been before."lor@ucla-cs.UUCP (09/10/84)
It's a pity we cannot get any Canada Cup coverage in southern California. As far as I know, only the Sportschannel and Madison Square Garden Channel in New York televise the games, while none of the nation-wide cable channels, like WTBS, ESPN, USA, etc., cover the tournament. Can you imagine ABC televising all Team USA games during the winter Olympics, but ignoring the Canada Cup? Hey, that team is only an amateur team seeded 7 among 8 teams; the current Team USA is an all-pro team with Rod Langway, Brian Trottier, Al Jensen, and xxx (the Buffalo goalie, the best in NHL). The Canadian Team is also loaded with future Hall of Famers, including the great Gretzky. The is a real good chance for our hockey teams to prove who is No. 1, NHL or the Soviets. This is a real hockey tournament, not the Winter Olympics, which featured Soviet veterans and American kids. Can anyone tell me why all the networks ignore it?
rick@ucla-cs.UUCP (09/13/84)
<==== yum yum ====>
Hockey has never had success on American tv. In the early 70's both CBS
and NBC (I think) tried broadcasting hockey (anyone else remember Peter Puck)
once a week (usually on Sunday afternoon) but didn't have enough success to
continue. The American public, for whatever reasons, doesn't like to watch
hockey on television. [actually, i have a theory about this which accounts for
the popularity of baseball and football and unpopularity of hockey and
basketball on tv. both hockey and basketball require that the viewer pay
attention all the time because they are continuous action sports. on the
other hand baseball and football spend most of the time doing NOTHING; the
action is limited to short spurts (in football you even know WHEN those
spurts will be). the average american joe does not have the attention span
to watch hockey and basketball. --- keep those flames and letters coming
in!]. Anyway, people in the USA don't watch hockey on tv (except regionally).
The Olympics are different for two reasons: 1) the 1980 gold medal team (we
all know what winning a medal will do for interest), and 2) you hardly saw
anything - the Olympic coverage was mostly highlights, they never showed a
complete game. They sort of snuck the hockey cover in. The Canada Cup, on the
other hand, does not evoke the same nationalism as the Olympics so why should
they show something no-one will watch? Sad but true! And one further thing,
why isn't anyone watching the games live either? Apparently the attendance
has been pretty bad too.
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 84 16:08:01 PDT
From: Richard Gillespie <rick>
Subject: followup failed
To: rick
inews: Cannot open /usr/spool/news/.in018940 (w).
Your article follows:
Newsgroups: net.sport.hockey
Subject: Re: Canada Cup
References: <1121@ucla-cs.ARPA> <1132@ucla-cs.ARPA>
<==== yum yum ====>
Hockey has never had success on American tv. In the early 70's both CBS
and NBC (I think) tried broadcasting hockey (anyone else remember Peter Puck)
once a week (usually on Sunday afternoon) but didn't have enough success to
continue. The American public, for whatever reasons, doesn't like to watch
hockey on television. [actually, i have a theory about this which accounts for
the popularity of baseball and football and unpopularity of hockey and
basketball on tv. both hockey and basketball require that the viewer pay
attention all the time because they are continuous action sports. on the
other hand baseball and football spend most of the time doing NOTHING; the
action is limited to short spurts (in football you even know WHEN those
spurts will be). the average american joe does not have the attention span
to watch hockey and basketball. --- keep those flames and letters coming
in!]. Anyway, people in the USA don't watch hockey on tv (except regionally).
The Olympics are different for two reasons: 1) the 1980 gold medal team (we
all know what winning a medal will do for interest), and 2) you hardly saw
anything - the Olympic coverage was mostly highlights, they never showed a
complete game. They sort of snuck the hockey cover in. The Canada Cup, on the
other hand, does not evoke the same nationalism as the Olympics so why should
they show something no-one will watch? Sad but true! And one further thing,
why isn't anyone watching the games live either? Apparently the attendance
has been pretty bad too.
Rick Gillespie
...!ucbvax!ucla-cs!rick
rick@ucla-cs
"Things are more like they are now than they ever have been before."
ps - the american goalie is Tom Barasso.petec@umcp-cs.UUCP (Pete Cottrell) (09/15/84)
There has been some coverage here in D.C. of the series because there
are 3 Capitals playing for the US (also at least one with the Canadian
team); each of the three scored a goal to help the US in a comeback 4-3
victory (against Canada?), and the US just beat the Czechs yesterday, I
think.
--
Call-Me: Pete Cottrell, Univ. of Md. Comp. Sci. Dept.
UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!petec
CSNet: petec@umcp-cs
ARPA: petec@marylandcarlo@oscvax.UUCP (Carlo Sgro) (09/17/84)
The reason that the American networks don't carry the Canada Cup is that (surprise, surprise!) there's apparently no money in it. The Olympics have a special mystique to them. Add this to the fact that the networks spend a bundle and a half for the entire package anyway and that Team USA won last time and you get the games televised. I'm sure that, if they DID telecast the Canada Cup (especially with the current scheduling), only the most hard-core hockey fans (like those who subscribe to net.sport.hockey :-) ) would watch it, placing the ratings on a par with 'Hello, Larry'. - Carlo
lake@alberta.UUCP (Robert Lake) (09/17/84)
...!ucbvax!ucla-cs!rick: "And one further thing, why isn't anyone watching the games live either? Apparently the attendance has been pretty bad too." I went to one game (the first Canada-Soviet game) and I didn't care much for the $23.25 I had to pay for a corner seat in the upper section. These were about the cheapest tickets available (red seats went for a minimum of $30). Generally the tickets are at least $10 more expensive than what we would pay to watch the Oilers (which already have one of the most expensive tickets in the NHL), and for many of us that is too much to pay. It seems ridiculous to pay $10 extra to watch Team Canada, which isn't as good as the Oilers, which we can watch 40 times a year. Robert Lake (alberta!lake) University of Alberta
jeff@dciem.UUCP (Jeff Richardson) (09/19/84)
Here's a few of my guesses as to why the Canada Cup is not being televised
in the USA:
1. When the tournament starts on September 1, it's still warm outside in
most parts of the country. I know it's warm at playoff time too, but by
then people have probably already gotten into hockey during the winter
months and that carries them through to the playoffs despite the weather.
When there's been no hockey for four months and the temperature still
hits 70, the only ice you think about is the cubes in your drink.
2. The NFL and NCAA football seasons are starting.
3. The baseball pennant races are nearing their climaxes and fans are
gearing up for the playoffs.
4. Until this year, the USA has been an also-ran in the Canada Cup.
Americans are used to doing well in international sports so they're not
going to watch a team that loses. This year's second place finish was good
but not good enough. If they had beaten Sweden in the playoff they
probably would have put in a respectable performance in the final series
and that might have been good enough to get one of the cable stations
to televise the next tournament. (It would have made the final series more
interesting for us Canadian fans too.) Remember the 1980 Olympics. The
USA was not expected to do well so they didn't get televised until it
looked like they had a good chance, then after they won, the next Olympic
hockey tournament got extensive coverage.
On last night's telecast, there was a list of about 11 countries in which
the game was being televised, including South Africa. You'd think that,
despite the above factors, if there's that much interest in it around the
world there should be some market for it in the USA.
--
Jeff Richardson, DCIEM, Toronto (416) 635-2073
{linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd}!utcsrgv!dciem!jeff
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!dciem!jeffrick@ucla-cs.UUCP (09/21/84)
<==== yum yum ====>
It sure is good to know that I can still count on Rob to pump up the Oilers.
How can Team Canada not be as good as the Oilers? Practically the whole Oiler
team is there! Maybe Rob misses Dave Lumley. Anyway, I remember the last
Canada Cup when we went to see a couple of games in Edmonton. Sure was a lot
of money to see Canada beat up on Finland, and USA and Sweden play a close
game, but at least I got to see the BEST players in the world. For a once-in-
a-lifetime chance like that (L.A. doesn't get those kind of games very often)
I'll fork out some bucks. Maybe the problem is the time of year? Who wants
to watch hockey in September (or football in March)?
Rick Gillespie
...!ucbvax!ucla-cs!rick
rick@ucla-cs
"Things are more like they are now than they ever have been before."kaufman@uiucdcs.UUCP (09/26/84)
A couple of metropolitan cable systems did pick it up. What I don't understand is why the USA Network (which provides national NHL coverage) didn't. I would gladly have sacrificed a couple of editions of Tuesday Night Titans :-) Ken