Parent
From: email@hidden (Women-in-Hockey Digest)
To: email@hidden
Subject: Women-in-Hockey Digest V1 #139
Reply-To: women-in-hockey
Sender: email@hidden
Errors-To: email@hidden
Precedence: bulk
Women-in-Hockey Digest Tuesday, February 17 1998 Volume 01 : Number 139
In this issue:
reaction to game (spoiler)
Re: congratulations to all of us!
Re: Now that it's over
Re: SPOILER
Re: Promises
Re: spoilers
USA Merchandise
cbs coverage, and womens hockey in general
Gold Medal Game and Aftermath
Women's Rules for Olympics (Was Re: SPOILER)
spoiler (if it's still relevent) - re: Promises
Re: CBS Coverage - Pathetic!
Re: the men supporting the women
=======================================================================
Unsubscribe:
Help:
or
=======================================================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 19:31:37 EST
From: email@hidden
Subject: reaction to game (spoiler)
I was kinda bored by the game, most likely because I couldn't stand not
knowing who won, so at 6am I was channel surfing all the news and sports
channels for some info on the game, which ESPN showed at 6:02am. So I was
pretty psyched the entire day, and for the first time since elementary school
I wore a hat to school (USA hockey of course) and my usa hockey shirt, even
though it has Vanbiesbrouck on the back. Its my way of showing the victory(the
same way everybody(except me, I hate football) wore broncos stuff to school
after they won the superbowl) So I knew the outcome of the game, and wasn't
really interested in even watching the game. When you already know the score
it takes away from the game, its like when does USA score the 3rd goal, or
when does canada finally score. and then they score, and its like oh.
But seeing the reactions of the USA players after the game is just
awesome, and well seeing Canada's expressions, that was kinda depressing. But
I'm gonna stay true to my red white and blue. So what, they got silver, I'd be
phycsed, honored and a bunch of other things just to play in the olympics.
(which is way beyond reality at this point, unless womens roller hockey
becomes a summer olympic sport, but since mens roller hockey isn't even close
to becoming an olympic sport, well its gonna be awhile) I can't even imagine
what it would be like to be standing on the (uhm I lost the word) thing that
they stand on while they raise the flags. It has to be an awesome feeling, and
you probably haven't felt prouder listening /singing your national anthem ever
in your life. Just thinking about something like that gives me chills. well
this mail is getting long, and well I still have another subject to write
about.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 16:29:18 -0800
From: Chuq Von Rospach
Subject: Re: congratulations to all of us!
At 10:20 AM -0800 2/17/98, HARRIS, zharris wrote:
> Congratulations to all the women who will go down in history (her-story)
our-story. It's not his, or hers, but ours.
- --
Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? )
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:email@hidden)
Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:email@hidden)
+
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 16:31:30 -0800
From: Chuq Von Rospach
Subject: Re: Now that it's over
At 8:45 AM -0800 2/17/98, email@hidden wrote:
> Now that the first olympic women's hockey is over. My feeling is
>that women's
> hockey will snowball across the country and world.
If the size of the women-in-hockey list is any indication, it's
happening. As the olympics got closer, it started growing, and it's
growing still. 14 new members in the last week (welcome, all!), and
four in the last 12 hours.
- --
Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? )
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:email@hidden)
Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:email@hidden)
+
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 16:43:09 -0800
From: Chuq Von Rospach
Subject: Re: SPOILER
At 1:36 PM -0800 2/17/98, Greg GMSMITH Marlene Smith wrote:
> That being said, I think the loss should spur Canadian Hockey to take a
> long and hard look at their program.
Agreed. Bottom line, it fell short, so it needs to be examined. On the
other hand, I'm not nearly as convinced as some people that it requires
a major shakeup.
> there isn't even an apperance of bias in the selection process. Clearly,
> having the head evaluator who is associated with her own high performance
> program business venture does not appear to facilitate this.
Sorry, not clear at all. That model works just fine all over the place.
Look at all the people who coach in various sports and run schools
successfully.
But it sure shows the agenda behind:
> Shannon Miller looks like a total fool now for two reasons:
> 1. For cutting Angela James -- Miller felt she had to cut Angela
> James to satisfy her ego.
That's *your opinion*. That's far from a proven fact. But it's not
surpristing to see here. There's a very strong anti-Miller group on
this list, and wehther or not they're right, they're very good at
slanting everything to prove their point.
Let's be real -- this was not a one or two player failure. Swap out a
player, swap in James. That would not have made the difference on this
team. The Canadian team maybe wasn't as good as thought, the Americans
were maybe better, and the Americans peaked for the Olympics and the
Canadians didn't. Now, it was Miller's job to peak them for the
Olympics, and it didn't happen, and we can rag on her for that. But I
find the personal animosity towards some of her decisions quite
offensive. It doesn't help the cause one bit to get THIS PERSONAL at
her. Even if you're right. Which I don't agree with.
It's rather amazing how polarized people are over Miller. The hostility
some people show is really over the edge.
> 2. For pompously guaranteeing a gold medal, and failing to deliver.
Like dozens before her. If it works, great. If not, you look the fool.
It's a tactic. A motivational tool. And right now, she looks a bit the
fool for doing it. But this is a situational hangnail, not an
amputation. But what the heck, let's lose all perspective.
> Miller, quite evidently, was out coached by US counter part Ben Smith.
And maybe, just maybe, the Americans were better than you give them credit for.
No, that'd be admitting that maybe the Canadians aren't automatically
the best. Gotta find a scapegoat. Gotta find an EXCUSE for the failure,
other than "they beat us".
- --
Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? )
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:email@hidden)
Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:email@hidden)
+
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 16:33:16 -0800
From: Chuq Von Rospach
Subject: Re: Promises
At 11:18 AM -0800 2/17/98, Cindy Goodman wrote:
> Does anyone else think it was just a little bit arrogant to have
>promised the gold medal as Coach Miller did the day they left for Japan
it was a mistake, but I wouldn't attribute it to arrogance. Confidence,
maybe, or an attempt at motivating her team. These things are always
risky, and this one backfired -- but at that level of performance, it's
all dancing on a razorblade. This time she got cut.
- --
Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? )
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:email@hidden)
Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:email@hidden)
+
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 16:35:16 -0800
From: Chuq Von Rospach
Subject: Re: spoilers
At 4:05 PM -0800 2/17/98, email@hidden wrote:
> First, Chuq told people not to post the scores in the topic lines, and the
> first posters didn't. Second, why log on at all until after you've watched
> the game?
BEcause some of us use e-mail as part of our jobs, and we have no
*choice*. We have to read e-mail, although we can delay reading stuff
if we KNOW it's something we want to wait for later. If the information
is in the subject line, we aren't *given* that choice.
- --
Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? )
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:email@hidden)
Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:email@hidden)
+
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 19:48:56 EST
From: email@hidden
Subject: USA Merchandise
At the USA/Canada game last month in San Jose they were selling some Team USA
merchandise (hats and t-shirts), I was wondering if anyone knows if they are
still selling those and how I could order them???
Thanks,
Krystal #14
Team USA -- The Golden Women of Nagano!!!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 19:53:31 EST
From: email@hidden
Subject: cbs coverage, and womens hockey in general
CBS well I don't think I'll even start with them. Before they even showed
the game they said they wouldn't be able to cover the entire game because of
time. Give me a break, they had 2 hours to put a 60 minute hockey game on tv.
Tape delayed no less. they could've just edited out the time taken for penalty
calling and that stuff. And the numerous weather announcements, if I wanted to
know the weather every 10 minutes I would've been watching the weather
channel. and then they had to show their news in there every once in awhile.
To me, the last thing I want on my tape of womens hockey is some stupid story
about Clinton. And they skipped the first 7 or 8 minutes of the game, I dunno
what else they left out. One thing though, I unlike, what seems most of you,
like those stories about the players and stuff, like between periods and
stuff, the only thing is, if they want to show stories, stay within the same
sport, I really don't want to see like michelle kwan or some skier person in
between the periods of a hockey game, I'd rahter see Granato or Ulion, or one
of them.
You would think since womens hockey is debuting, they would AT LEAST
show the entire gold medal game, but I guess thats expecting too much or
something. Yet they show the entirety of the russian, czech mens game, during
the middle of the day, plus the finland canada game late night. I see a little
discrimination there.
About hockey not being a major sport in the US, in a way you're right,
sure theres a lot of it on the east coast and up north. And is just now coming
down to the south and west coast. But still they should at least put an effort
into showing the ENTIRE game. I would never stay up late to watch football,
baseball or basketball, Of course I wouldn't waste my time watching football,
baseball or basketball (except the WNBA or ABL) any time. But I would stay up
to watch hockey, well at least womens hockey. I attempted to watch the late
night mens games, only making it through half of the first period before
falling asleep. Except the USA/Canada mens game.
I wish I could say the olympics have brought womens hockey to a new
level, but I would be lying. well for around here anyways. You don't hear much
about it here in colorado, and most people at school seem to think the whole
"girls can't play" thing. I wrote letters to the newspaper saying I'd like to
see at least pictures and articles in the paper, and color pictures wouild be
really nice, did they listen? you bet not. theres been an article here and
there, but pictures are nowhere to be found. Instead they focus on like either
the men losing against canada or some stupid wrestling tournament. They don't
even have an entire page devoted to the olympics. During the summer olympics
they had semi-good coverage but now, if you want to know results from
something, you have to go online to get them. If I can get the money, soon
after I graduate, I'm outta here, to minnesota, the east coast, or even canada
(for college at least) I can't stand living in colorado anymore, they're too
busy with the broncos and their stupid new stadium. Its like oh you mean there
are olympics going on, I didn't notice we're too busy designing the new
stadium.
Well they all deserve it, congratulations to all the women hockey players
in the olympics, they're making history for us. or as some say herstory.
Well off to finish my english project (amazingly enough it has hockey in
it, I can always find a way to relate hockey to something,) we had to creat a
creature and advertise it (yes it sounds really kiddy for a 10th grade english
class, but its supossed to help us with persauiveness or something) anyways
mines a one thing hockey team(it plays all positions by itself) and I'm trying
to name it something that would be like a tribute to womens hockey. Just
thought you'd like to know, well actually you probably couldn't care less, but
anyways Good job USA!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 20:18:39 -0500
From: "Jill C. Philpot"
Subject: Gold Medal Game and Aftermath
First, a well deserved congratulations to the US team for a great Olympic
performance. I hold dual citizenship and was really torn between which
country I should cheer for, in my heart I may have wanted Canada to win but
I am thrilled at what winning the gold medal will do for the sport here in
the US. Similar to other list members, we're talking about it at work, it's
in the papers, and on TV.
A few points:
1) How can anyone be surprised that Canada didn't win? The Americans showed
more enthusiasm, heart, and simply got to the puck with more determination
during the round robin play. It's a monkey off their backs and I am very
happy for the US team members.
2) If you are unhappy with the CBS coverage, write to them (I did!).
Showing half of the inaugural gold medal game of women's hockey WITH THE
U.S. PLAYING is ridiculous. Add to it that it was intermingled with local
news, national news, weather, and traffic (at least here in Washington D.C.
they give traffic reports on TV) every half hour!
3) I read the following at the canoe web site: "Half a dozen members of the
men's team that defeated the United States a day earlier came to watch,
including Eric Lindros, Wayne Gretzky and Rheaume's idol, Patrick Roy. The
U.S. men went to dinner instead." What's with that? I also heard that
Brendan Shanahan and Joe Sakic gave the Canadians a pep talk between the
2nd and 3rd periods (okay so it didn't do any good but at least they came
:-) What's with the American men?
(I guess that's why I married a Canadian :-)
Jill Philpot
(displaced Montrealer living in Maryland)
P.S. I miss the CBC most of all!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 20:32:10 -0500
From: Louise
Subject: Women's Rules for Olympics (Was Re: SPOILER)
Greg GMSMITH Marlene Smith wrote:
>I can understand that Team Canada might have wanted to go with
>a "youth movement", but there is a time and a place for it. Pac Rim's and
>3 Nations Cups are times when you can afford to see how the younger
>players play. The Olympics is a time to go with your best 22.
Greg, I'm snipping this out of context, because it reminds me of something
that's been troubling me. The women's rosters for this Olympics were
limited to 20 (18 players and 2 goalies), with an exception spelled out for
bringing in a third goalie if one is hurt. The men's rosters carried 23
(20 skaters, 3 goalies.)
I think the lower roster limit for the women should be changed before Salt
Lake City. Teams which play intense, 3x20stop hockey at a world class
level are bound to have injuries. The coaches understandably wanted to
finish their cuts 7-9 weeks before the Olympics, so that they could
concentrate on team-building and final preparations. I know we heard about
several Canadian players injured in the final couple of months and during
the Olympics, and I'm sure there were more injuries we didn't hear about.
I'm sure the other teams had similar injury rates. (Aside: didn't you
like the way Tiia Reima of Finland used her uniform ascot scarf to make a
dressy sling for the medal presentation ceremony? I wonder whether their
uniform supplier planned that versatility. A Canadian could have used her
Roots scarf, if she needed a sling. A new fashion category begins ...)
These teams should have the flexibility to bring a couple of extra skaters
to the Olympics, to allow injured players to sit out a game or two when
that would be better in the longer term, for the player's health and for
the team's final-round chances.
Why were the rosters set at 20? Was it some kind of recognition that other
countries don't have nearly the depth of talent that Canada and the USA
have, so that rosters of 23 would favour the North American countries even
more? Or was it a cost-saving compromise negotiated with NAOC and
competing countries, because of the extra costs associated with
accommodating 3 more athletes per team?
The women's international games that I'd seen before, both live and on TSN,
included world championship games, Three Nations Cup games, and exhibition
games. In all those games, it seemed that the game would be delayed for
commercial breaks, the way NHL games are. But I don't think they did that
in the Olympics - the short commercial breaks, and no sign of teams
standing around at the face-offs, were quite refreshing.
Louise
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 17:47:27 -0800
From: "Jennifer Berger"
Subject: spoiler (if it's still relevent) - re: Promises
>>Does anyone else think it was just a little bit arrogant to have promised the
gold medal as Coach Miller did >>the day they left for Japan? Didn't that put
even more unneeded pressure on these athletes to perform? >>Can't get it out of
my mind.
>>Could it not be considered confidence? What is wrong with that? You
>>just HATE her, it is very obvious.
It seems to me as if the little conflict between Dave and Cindy to which
we have been privy during the last few days is continuing. This latest
comment seems to me to border on unnecessary. It certainly is NOT
obvious to me that anyone HATES Miller simply because they mention
that they found her remarks arrogant. I agree, actually, that a certain
degree of arrogance would have to exist to promise something that
is not a 100% sure thing. Whether that's positive of negative is not
for me to decide. I guess it didn't help her team in this particular
instance. But, like many have said, if Canada had pulled it off, she'd
be riding high. I admire her for taking that chance and laying herself
on the line like that.
I thought it was a great day for women's hockey all the way around. The game
was great - at least what portion of it we got to see on CBS (hey - they could
have showed us NOTHING at all). The Canadians played well. The
Americans played well. More people than ever before know that, yes,
women DO play hockey, and play it VERY well. Thank God for that.
I just have one more comment about CBS' coverage. I thought John Davidson's
enthusiasm was just wonderful. At one point he was saying that he had
"goose pimples" from watching these women play, and compared Tueting
to Dominick Hasek! I felt his comments were sincere and heartfelt and did
nothing but boost the experience of watching this game for me. There's always
a silver lining somewhere.........
Jennifer #68
SDWH
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 20:38:16 -0600 (CST)
From: email@hidden
Subject: Re: CBS Coverage - Pathetic!
Well I have to agree with all of you on the final coverage of the gold metal game. I
thought CBS was going to televise it in its entirety. What happened? Leading up to
last night, they could be excused for not showing the full game, but to show as little as
they did and to have the US win to boot it unbelievable.
Well one solution is to plan on being in Salt Lake in 2002, then you will not miss one
single minute of the games.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 21:18:11 -0600 (CST)
From: email@hidden
Subject: Re: the men supporting the women
At RPI at the beginning of the year, the men's team used to laugh and make fun of the
women's team during their practices. The men's team is usually at away games when the
women play at home and vise versa so there is not much opportunity for either to watch
the other play. During the course of the season the men's team has been placing
between 6th and 4th in the standings, while the women's team has been in the top three
the entire season. Well recently the women said they got paid one of the highest
complements from the men's team. The men's team had just arrived back from a road trip
as one of the women's team was being played. The men stayed and were actually rooting
for the women. Cheer for them and shouting encouragement.
That little bit of support went a long way in boosting the women's spirit. It also
went a long way in giving legitamacy and acceptance for women in the sport. It is too
bad that the US men's team can not show the same type of support. The women are
bringing home the gold in hockey, something I am having my doubts that men can
accomplish at this date.
I found it interesting on the Nagano websites that when you look at the roster for ice
hockey you see Gretzky next to Goyette and Granato appearing next to Guerin and
Hatchers. The men and women listed as competetors side by side.
Maybe the men just earn too much money and see themselves as the superstars and not
really part of the Olympic team. At least they choose to stay in the Olympic Village
rather than opting for hotel rooms as the NBA stars did. But wouldn't it have been a
great sign of unity and support to have had them present at the game as the Canadian
men's team did.
Hats off to the Canadians, you have won the gold there for having men that really
support our sport.
------------------------------
End of Women-in-Hockey Digest V1 #139
*************************************