From: (Gerry Gryschuk)
Subject: Re: Manon
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 11:07:59 GMT

From article <1992Oct1.174237.1734@adobe.com>, by snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols):
> In article <1992Oct1.070014.29345@access.usask.ca> gerry@skatter.usask.ca writes:
>>The ends justify the means? I would have much rather seen the first be saved
>>for someone who had a legitimate shot at being either a backup or starter. Why?
>>Simply because the impact of a woman getting a job full time would have had
>>more impact then Manon Rheame's single shot publicity tour. 
> 
> Yes, a woman getting a full time job would have more impact.  That doesn't
> mean that a single shot publicity tour has no impact, or only negative
> impact.  Whether Rheaume makes it or not, her performance has definitely
> opened some eyes.  I consider that a big positive.
> 

This is a good point, note however that I said "more impact", implying that I
believe Rheame's appearance will have an impact. Granted it doesn't say that
I believe it is positive, since that is unclear I will just come out and
say that she has had a positive impact. Mind you I don't think its a big
positive or at least not as big as it could have been(see later).


There are several questions in my mind about the wisdom of this move.

You say that her performance has definitely opened some eyes. Who's eyes
and to what? Did she open the eyes of the general American public? Given that
the general American fan doesn't care about hockey anyway how much impact
could this move seriously have in the States? Did she open the eyes of NHL
scouts?(ie. will NHL teams now take a serious look at women players?).  Will
the fact that Manon has now played in the NHL actually lead to increases
in young women entering hockey?

My own belief is that her appearance with Tampa will have a negligble(but
positive) impact everywhere but possibly in Tampa(and now Atlanta) where it
may have an immediate larger effect. I can't see it having any more effect in
Canada than her appearance in Junior A. Although I know there must still be
discrimination at various levels of hockey organizations in Canada(forcing the
Women's Team Canada to wear pink rather than the traditional red is a good
indication of this) the fact that Manon reached the level she did(before her
invitation to camp) also indicates that the barriers to women may not be as
big as we presume(on the other hand this may just prove she's so good that
she overcame the discrimination).

Recent numbers show that women are already increasing their participation in
hockey in Canada at least at the recreational level(sorry but I don't have a
reference for this beyond the TV show "For the Love of the Game", and past
posts which talked about this phenomenon). Given that at least here in 
Saskatoon her progress with Tampa hasn't been given much coverage, I suspect
that the increase in women entering hockey in Canada will not be largely
effected.

Since I only have Phil's comments to guide me, I have to believe that
Manon doesn't have a legitimate shot at returning to the NHL. Given this
than the next woman to get a shot will have significantly less impact than
she would have had, had she both been a "first" and a good prospect. That is
to say that I believe(note this is only a belief) that the impact of a woman
who was both a "first" and a legitimate prospect(drafted, seriously talked
about as a future NHLer etc.) would have been larger than the sum of each
seperate event as will occur now(I have no doubt that a woman will make the
NHL in the future).

Coverage of a good prospect should be significantly larger, but much less than
it could have been if she also was a first. Consider the coverage of following
the rise of the first woman who has a legitimate shot at playing full time in
the NHL who was also the first woman to get a shot period. Compare that to
what we have, following the rise of what is admittedly a publicity stunt.

I realize the last request above is purely a thought experiment, worse
yet its based on ones own perceptions of other people which are frequently
wrong(at least in my case).


>>Interesting. Shouldn't she have earned her invitation to camp then?
> 
> She earned her invitation to camp just as much as anybody else.  There is
> no objective measure of who "deserves" a place in camp.  
> 

There's an objective measure of who deserves to make it to the NHL?
Does Link Gaetz deserve to be there? 

> Sherri Nichols
> snichols@adobe.com
> 
--
Gerald Gryschuk            Saskatoon,Saskatchewan = a place with 9 months
gerry@sask.usask.ca           of hockey and 3 months of poor skating.
Go Habs!!!
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey