Pros Score On Olympic Stage

(Photo by Jamie Squire/Getty Images)

With orientation camps for the Canadian and US Men’s 2010 Olympic ice hockey teams taking place in August, excitement for hockey has experienced a little late summer boost. And that’s always a good thing.

The NHL season is around two months away from full action, and it never hurts to get the hardcore fans talking stick-and-puck even if it is regarding an event (the Winter Olympics) that will happen well after the actual NHL 2009-10 begins.

Anytime sports fans ponder a gathering of the best players in a sport, you’re bound to get a little media buzz, and some spirited debate on who should make which team. For the loyal fans of hockey, this speculation is always a fun exercise. Almost like a fantasy draft.

Let’s face it, it’s been said many times: “people love lists.” Top 10 this, bottom five that, you name it, we like to make them. Especially sports fans. Heck, that’s essentially what Halls of Fame are for.

But along with the speculation about which pro players should play in the Olympics comes the inevitable argument on why pros should NOT be allowed to participate. Well I’d like to address this argument once and for all:

First off, the argument that it’s more interesting when the amateurs play: In hockey, at least, this is a ridiculous argument spurred on by the greatness of the "Miracle on Ice"—a once in a lifetime event that was particularly poignant because the Russians were essentially pros anyway. But if it's so compelling and exciting to watch the non-pros play, then why is there almost NO INTEREST in the World Junior Championships every year? Ratings are virtually non-existent in the US and, in some markets, they don’t even broadcast it. Most Americans couldn’t tell you where the US team placed after it’s over.

Players can get injured. One word: INSURANCE. If you don’t already see the advantages of getting back a more experienced player in return for the necessary risk of them getting injured, then you have to at least admit that offseason injuries are ALWAYS risky for the team. That’s why these players are so heavily insured. Seldom do more than a couple of players on each team get injured anyway, so the percentage is small to begin with. And don't even get me started on pre-season games.

If the pros don’t play then the gold medal is devalued. If you are going to hold a competition to determine who the “best in the world” are every four years, you’d better have the best athletes competing. If an amateur team wins the gold while better players are not competing, the gold has no real clout.  When the best players play, the winners can, only then, claim genuine supremacy in the sport.

It makes the players better. Going up against the best players in the world raises the level of everyone who participates. The teams who have rights to these players benefit significantly from the experience their player(s) gain from this competition. And the players are often rejuvenated after it’s over, cherishing their chance to perform on the world stage.

It’s good for the sport. Seeing the best players in hockey compete improves the exposure of the game. If the US wins the gold, grass roots hockey gets a massive shot in the arm. If, for instance, Mike Modano scores the winning goal for team USA, the Dallas Stars get the dividend from his increased notoriety.  

You're currently logged into Facebook

Do you want to share your Bleacher Report activity on Facebook?