• Not a particularly graceful two weeks for the Fawned Over One, Alex Ovechkin.

Big thanks to friend of the blog Cassie from SBN's Raw Charge for providing this introduction to Women's Hockey. Make sure to check out Raw Charge and follow Cassie on Twitter.

There has been a lot of discussion about women’s ice hockey lately. The United States will meet Canada to play for the gold medal – again – on Thursday, and it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that they’d be playing each other for the gold from the beginning. For both teams, their opponents appeared to be nothing more than speed bumps on the way to this game.

Scores like 18-0, 13-0, 12-1 were common for those two national teams, and many people have been questioning whether women’s ice hockey should be an Olympic event because of the lack of suitable competition. So let me explain women’s hockey. I used to play, so I know how this goes.

First off, there’s a very good reason why the US and Canada have easily out-played their competition. Canada has had a women’s hockey program in place since at least the 1980s. The US has had a women’s hockey program for probably about as long and both countries have had girls playing on boys teams for a lot longer than that.

The very first international women’s hockey tournament was held in 1990. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) decided in 1992 to make women’s ice hockey a gold medal event at the 1998 Olympics in Nagano, Japan. Only six countries participated in that first Olympics for the sport in 1998: The US (gold), Canada (silver), Finland (bronze), China, Sweden, and the host country, Japan. So women’s hockey is a relatively young sport.

Smile like the Lamoureuxs

The real problem with women’s hockey is that the women’s programs for most of the other participating nations are at least a good 10 years behind the US and Canada. I would guess that most countries got their programs going right after the IOC’s announcement in 1992. Sweden and Finland, despite being blown out by the US and Canada in this Olympics, have become pretty competitive. The rest of the field is still catching up, however. Give it another ten years and you’ll probably see the level of international competition jump up significantly.

Women’s hockey is different than the men’s. There’s no getting around that. The rules are pretty much the same with two significant exceptions.

The first is that women’s hockey players are required to wear full face protection. Most wear metal wire cages, but some wear the clear plastic shields. It used to be that neck guards were required as well, but I believe that’s optional at the senior level now.

The biggest difference between men’s and women’s hockey is that body checking is a penalty for the women. Now don’t get that wrong – the woman’s game is still very physical. But lining someone up and checking them into the boards and open ice hits are penalties.

Women do know how to body check and they would very much like to be able to. But at this time, it’s against the rules. The reason for it, from what I was told when I played, is that a woman could get a stick end in the lower abdomen and be injured so that she may not be able to have children because of that. The same thing goes with the men, of course, but it’s the women that actually have the babies – that’s the difference. There is additional padding that is required for women to wear to cover their lower abdomens, but that apparently doesn’t make any difference to the rule makers.

Babies are to blame for, like, everything really.

See, this is what happens when old men make the rules for a women’s sport, and it drives us women nuts. We’d very much like to play hockey as the men do, and we all consider that to be “real” hockey, but we’re not allowed simply because we are able to bear children.

Sadly, hockey isn’t the only sport infected with this wrong-headed kind of thinking.

The reason that women know how to body check is because women’s teams play boys teams when there aren’t any other women’s teams around. While in women’s hockey checking isn’t allowed, in mixed games it is – or it can be. Women’s teams will play high school aged boys teams for competition. Before the game, each team will vote on whether to include checking or not. Then the coaches and officials meet, and they give the team’s decisions. And checking is almost always allowed. Women will take any chance they can to play “real” hockey, and teenage boys won’t pass up the opportunity to body check women if it’s legal.

In the younger age brackets, girls will play on the same teams as boys. And, if there aren’t enough girls to form a team in an area, then they’ll make allowances to girls to play with the boys into the teen years. Very occasionally, a girl will play with high school aged boys, especially if she’s good enough. As the girl gets older, however, the ones that are able to play with the boys the longest are the goaltenders.

Manon Rheaume, the only woman to ever play in the NHL (albeit briefly)

Girls who play as defensemen and forwards aren’t usually able to keep up with the boys after a while. And there’s a good read for that: it’s called biology. It has nothing to do with height and weight – though that does become a consideration for many – so much as speed.

The women’s game is a little slower than the men’s game. It’s about on pace with high school boys hockey, so it’s not as if it’s really slow. Most of the women who play in the Olympics for the US are college hockey players, and female collegiate athletes are typically very good and pretty fast.

The speed problem comes from physiology. Men’s legs are right underneath them; their knees usually line up with their hip sockets when they stand with their feet shoulder’s width apart. So their thighbones go from hip to knee in a fairly straight line, and that gives them a very efficient skating stride.

Women, because we bear children, aren’t built like that. When we stand with our feet shoulder’s length apart, our knees line up inside our hip sockets. Our thigh bones come into our knees at an angle – not straight above like the men’s thighbones do. This is why women have far more knee problems than men do, as a general rule, but it also makes our skating strides less efficient and therefore makes us not as quick as the men.

It really is the same sport, however, despite its differences. And, in actuality, the differences aren’t that great. Some people enjoy the women’s game more because there isn’t any checking, because that’s seen as creating a better flow to the game. But until there is more competition for the US and Canada – and there will be, you just have to be patient – these blowouts are just not entertaining.

However, before you make any judgment about women’s ice hockey, watch the gold medal game between the US and Canada on Thursday. That will be as competitive and as physical game as you could possibly ask for. And, you might be surprised by how much you like it.

I've kind of taken a hiatus from blogging during the games, because other than what's going on up in Vancouver there's not much to talk about.  I've poked and prodded teh interwebz, and here's what I've found:

The Preds might have a name for their arena, one hopefully that won't skip out on financial obligations to the team or the city.  Bridgstone Arena sounds a lot cooler than Sommet Center, which I always felt was a tad too "French Surrender Monkey" for a hockey team.  They also have a pretty cool profile on Patrik Hornqvist over there... never realized that he was chosen last for kickball in 2005.

The HuffPo is picking up hockey news now? Nice writeup on the new Blackhawks phenomenon  I'm trying to comb the recessess of my mind to think of a good "liberals/hockey/political turncoat" joke here, and it's just not happening.  I'm disappointed in myself.

FrozenNotes has the latest in their recurring report on the Blues in the Games.  Two out of the three had a good day Sunday.

You're going to the Game Time Prospect Department every Sunday for your young guns updates, right?  RIGHT?  No?  And just why not?  Hockey's Future has got nuttin on B-ri over at Game Time.

Winging it in Motown's got some split loyalties right now... cheer on Rafalski, or be all "yaaaay, Babcock?"  Or, worse yet, if USA plays Sweden, what in the world happens?  Insert Scanners head 'splode joke here.

Nightmare on Helm Street breaks down the riviting NHL.com Rafalski interview.  Quick question - do the same guys who write the headlines on the main page come up with the questions for the interviews?  Because if that's a yes... that explains a lot.

Lastly, I would love to insert a Blue Jackets link in here somewhere, but apparently none of the blogs are actually posting anything anymore.  Um... your team's still there, right?  Some dude named Nash is in the Olympics, isn't he?

So I've been saturating the Twitterverse with my unwelcomed commentary since Men's Olympic Hockey began on Tuesday and soaked in a lot of the trends in the process. Some are traditional bits of Twitter snark carrying over to the Olympics (see: Crosby, Sidney) while other jokes are only going to be cracked out during these two weeks (better use your best WWII references fast!).

Now, keep in mind I'm guilty of a ton of these. That doesn't mean I'll hesitate to make fun of myself and everyone else. Feel free to keep a scorecard and if you get 5-across go ahead and treat yourself to 5 monopoly bucks. No free spaces, because those are weaker than the fact that there's no checking in women's hockey.

ANYWAY, feel free to leave your own suggestions for better bingo pieces in the comments. Leave your grandma at home, though, please. Click on the image to check it out.

Get off my TV screen you adorable curling women!

Hockey fans have learned to hate NBC and generally piss poor coverage of the game for years now. Many of us will never forget the Peacock's decision to move an intense Sabres-Senators playoff game to Versus in order to run the pre-show for a horse race. Even if you argue that the racing preview might affect gambling decisions (and therefore could be highly rated relatively speaking), it's not that far from saying that professional bowling out-rated hockey. (Which ... ugh, actually happened.)

Still, with all the problems NBC and Vancouver are having in the 2010 Winter Olympics, you'd think that they would have some backup plans if certain events took longer than expected. Especially considering the fact that the Network has its MSNBC, CNBC and USA affiliates at their disposal.

Yet when the hockey world clamored to see what home team (and gold medal favorite) Canada would do in front of a partisan crowd, CNBC audience members were treated to ...

Curling! Hey oh!

Needless to say, I was among the masses who were stunned by the company's befuddled reaction. It took the Powers That Be nearly half the first period to switch from a women's hockey blowout to this game and they did so without any clear message for hockey fans to switch over. Then, they casually switched back during a commercial break with only a mention from Doc Emmerick. No on-screen graphic.

Here's a collection of some angry puck reactions. Some from Twitter, some from blogs. Feel free to e-mail me at cyclelikesedins[at]gmail.com if you have reactions to the brief clusterfuck (this list will be updated a few times):

Fools and Sages' reaction

Puck the Media's critique

The angry progression of my Twitter reactions (from least recent to most recent):

Uhhh we're not going to miss hockey for curling. Right?

about 1 hours ago from web

Each side takes at least 7 minutes? Fuck!

about 1 hours ago from web

At least the Japanese curlers are adorable.

about 1 hours ago from web

Puck the Media's Stevelepore says:

I don't understand why MSNBC hasn't just been switched over. It's not like that game's hanging in the balance...

about 1 hours ago from web

My response:

@stevelepore Because NBC doesn't care, Steve. Because NBC doesn't care.

about 1 hour ago from web in reply to stevelepore

This would NEVER happen to basketball. I would really like to give someone at NBC a backbreaker right now.

about 1 hour ago from web

What a fucking joke. Hey, @stevelepore did CNBC even note that the hockey game is on MSNBC? I switched instinctively.

about 1 hour ago from web

@HockeyJoeGM So much for the Olympics growing the game, although it IS good training for all the hockey scavenger hunts we experience ...

43 minutes ago from web in reply to HockeyJoeGM

Wait, I spaced out, did they move the game back to CurlingNBC?

about 1 hour ago from web

***

So, yeah, I was pretty mad at NBC. I also get a little hyper on Twitter.

Some other Olympic Hockey-fueled anger on Twitter:

puckreport tweeted:

hildymac tweeted:

about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck in reply to cyclelikesedins

Yotesgurl

about 1 hours ago from web in reply to cyclelikesedins

HBAdventure:

If you get on NBC cameras with a sign lambasting them I'll paypal you $20. No lie. Send proof.

44 minutes ago from Echofon

And most simply:

HockeyJoeGM

about 1 hour ago from web in reply to cyclelikesedins

The pro wrestling/Photoshop lovers at Pensblog created a creative Olympic Hockey fantasy game at Rinkotology. You have until 3:00 pm ET to get your team in and go for one of the 5 prizes. It costs $10 to join, but I think it's worth the rooting interest. Besides, not everyone can afford putting such services up for free when they're not some Internet hippo like Yahoo!, right?

At first I thought I should try to keep my team secret, but then I realized that would be petty and silly. Really, if you want to steal some of my ideas go for it.

Here's my team. I'll have an explanation for choices in a bit, but I wanted to get this up to give people a chance to join.

(Click the image to enlarge)

Evaluating my team

So, the catch with Rinktology is that you have to choose one player from every country. You are allowed 8 forwards, 3 defensemen and one goalie.

The first step, for me, was to narrow down the best choices from the underdog nations.

Swiss defenseman Mark Streit is the easiest choice of all and I'd be surprised if any "hockey people" left him out. Perhaps someone thinks that Jonas Hiller will lead a crazy Cinderella run, but I'm more comfortable with the rarity of a high scoring Swiss D.

One of the biggest decisions was picking a goalie.

I think that Canada is going to take the gold medal, but I was weary of choosing between Roberto Luongo and Martin Brodeur. Russia is obviously the other big favorite for the gold, but I'm not a huge fan of their defense (and naturally want to have a certain Russian forward on my team anyway).

While I'm a fan of Ryan Miller, I'm more than a little worried about the US defense.

So considering these factors (Canada and Russia's forwards are too great to pass up but you want to go after a goalie on a strong contender), the decision came down to Henrik Lundqvist or Tomas Vokoun.

Ultimately, I wanted Nicklas Lidstrom on my blue line more than any Czech player in any other position. It also is fair to say that I have a bit of a hockey dork crush on Vokoun, so I figured why the hell not?

Crosby, Ovechkin and Hossa were probably the easiest decisions to make. I might make a last minute change from Patrick Kane to Zach Parise, but I'm definitely happy to root for a likable American forward either way.

Toughest omissions:

Lundqvist: I might change my mind at the last minute and make him my goalie

Jaromir Jagr: my man-crush on Jagr is almost unlimited.

Henrik Zetterberg: I've always been a big fan of his, and really, defensemen are never as valuable as forwards in these things. Still, the lure of Lidstrom was too strong.

If the Olympics were held for ants.

Chicago Blackhawks forward and apparent American Olympic savior Patrick Kane is saying that the USA is there for nothing less than solid gold.  If you say otherwise, he'll start yelling "Do you know who I am???" at you while an older, bigger player (possibly Jamie Langenbrunner) beats you up.

SB Nation's tag team of arena newspapers, Second City Hockey and St. Louis Game Time, preview the Olympics.  One has a slightly, uh... more hostile viewpoint.

Erik Johnson is super duper mega excited!  All sugar'll probably be taken away from him for a while after this interview.

The Preds' Olympic guys are also excited, but not as pumped as Johnson.  As though anyone could be.  Pretty sure these guys contribute to the teams SWOT in a positive way.

Babcock's Death Stare looks at the 10th seed position, and why it kind of, well... sucks.

Dear God, do Blue Jackets' bloggers not update their sites?  Jabba's been gone for a while, guys.

Simply put, I couldn't find a simple and clean men's-only hockey schedule so I asked around and put this together. You can find a full schedule in various spots and surely there are similar things like this out there but I couldn't find one immediately. Big thanks to Steve Lepore, Cassie and Tapeleg who sent some schedule link help on Twitter. This list was edited from a Puck the Media post.

Date in bold, then the format is time, match and (network). This will mark the first time since I watched pro wrestling that I'll watch something on USA! Where IS USA network anyway? Oh, so much to learn ...

Edit: All times are ET (Eastern Standard Time)

Feb. 16

3:00 USA vs. Switzerland (USA)

8:00 Canada vs. Norway (CNBC)

12:30 AM Russia vs. Latvia (CNBC)

Feb. 17

3:00 Finland vs. Belarus (MSNBC)

8:00 Sweden vs. Germany (CNBC)

12:30 Czech Republic vs. Slovakia (CNBC)

Feb. 18

3:00 USA vs. Norway (USA)

8:00 Canada vs. Switzerland (CNBC)

12:30 Russia vs. Slovakia (CNBC)

Feb. 19

3:00 Sweden vs. Belarus (MSNBC)

8:00 Czech Republic vs. Latvia (CNBC)

12:00 Finland vs. Germany (MSNBC)

Feb. 20

3:00 Norway vs. Switzerland (MSNBC)

7:30 Slovakia vs. Latvia (MSNBC)

12:00 Belarus vs. Germany (MSNBC)

Feb. 21

3:00 Czech Republic vs. Russia (NBC)

7:00 Canada vs. USA (MSNBC)

12:00 Sweden vs. Finland (MSNBC)

Feb. 23

3:00 Secondary Round Action (Potential Team USA Game) (USA)

8:00 Secondary Round Action (CNBC)

10:00 Secondary Round Action (CNBC)

12:30 Secondary Round Action (CNBC)

Feb. 24

3:00 Team USA Quarterfinal (NBC)

7:00 Team Canada Quarterfinal (MSNBC)

10:00 Quarterfinal (CNBC)

12:30 Quarterfinal (CNBC)

Feb. 26

3:00 Team USA Semifinal (NBC, Likely Moved if Team USA not involved)

9:00 Semifinal (CNBC)

Feb. 27

10:00 Bronze Medal Game (MSNBC)

Feb. 28

3:15 Gold Medal Game (NBC)

To the surprise of few, the Columbus Blue Jackets recently fired coach Ken Hitchcock. You've probably read all about it, but the basic problem was that (much like fellow Central Division ex-coach Andy Murray) Hitch managed to lead the BJ's to an unexpected playoff berth last season only to see the bottom fall out this year.

People blamed Steve Mason's disturbing sophomore slump or assumed that Hitch simply cannot adapt to the post-lockout NHL.

Frankly, I think that's hogwash. Hitchcock has been a success with three different franchises (a Cup in Dallas, making the Eastern Conference Finals with Philadelphia and leading hapless Columbus to its first-ever playoff berth) even if his teams rarely lead the league in thrills and exclamation points.

I think Hitchcock was the easy scapegoat as is often the case in the NHL. Horrible GMs such as Glen Sather and Don Waddell keep polluting the on-ice product while competent coaches get canned. However I feel about the decision, the plain truth is that both Hitch and I have one thing in common at the moment: unemployment.

With that in mind, these are the teams that I believe would benefit greatly (and could realistically make a move) to add Hitchcock.

(Click read more)

I've followed Kovalchuk's polygonal heroics for quite some time.

So, with Ilya Kovalchuk (somewhat surprisingly) being moved to New Jersey for bits'n'pieces, it might be safe to assume that there won't be any more blockbusters until the Olympic Break. I could be very wrong, but Kovalchuk is the biggest name to be moved since Marian Hossa and considering how important Kovy was to the Thrashers ... it might be the biggest trade since Joe Thornton was shipped to San Jose.

(For the record: I think Jumbo Joe and Hossa are both more valuable players from a "big picture" sense.)

One area in which the Devils TRULY won was the digital realm. Generally speaking, big names get the benefit of the doubt in video games. With Kovalchuk, Phaneuf, Giguere and Jokinen changing teams, there might be a slight shift in the world of NHL '10.

Let's take a look at these teams' digital developments.

New Jersey

Video games (and Glen Sather) always overvalued Bobby "Caveman" Holik

Best digi-players: Kovalchuk (rating: 90), Zach Parise (rating: 86), Patrik Elias (rating: 86) and Martin Brodeur (91)

Strengths: first line offense, goalie

Weaknesses: defense, depth?

Trend: WAY up

Appraisal: It's funny that this was the first year the Devils were no longer a strong team in NHL games. Without John Madden and Bobby Holik, the Devils no longer were ridiculous on faceoffs and generally lacked depth at center and in the forward ranks in general. They still have that flaw, but man-oh-man is Kovalchuk-Parise-Elias an awesome first video game line or what? They're still short of Pittsburgh and San Jose in pixel-land but the Devils are once again a contender for the polygonal throne.

When all you really lose in the video game arena is Johnny Oduya (80) and Niclas Bergfors (79), it's an even bigger steal than in real life.

Toronto

Best digi-players: J.S. Giguere (85), Dion Phaneuf (84), Tomas Kaberle (85) and Phil Kessel (84)

Strengths: defense?

(obviously this was first featured at Puck Daddy)

Weaknesses: offense

Trend: Slightly up

Appraisal: I'm in the "not quite convinced" club when it comes to the real-life effects of Burke's moves, but the Leafs' digital outlook isn't that different. Blake (83), Stajan (82) and Hagman (80) were all pretty solid in NHL '10. The Leafs got a boost in net with Giguere, but overall the team is basically just for Leafs fans to enjoy/be saddled by.

Calgary

Best digi-players: Jarome Iginla (93), Kipper (88), Jay Bouwmeester (85)

Strengths: hmmm ... depth maybe?

Weaknesses: offense outside of Iginla

Trend: Slightly down

Appraisal: With the HUGE amount of movement in Calgary, it will probably require a roster update to truly judge the Flames in video games. However, the Flames have fallen far since being a one-time overrated video game team. Now, they're a lot more like they are in real life; Calgary's a mess of a group that depends on a whole bunch on Iginla and Kipper.

The moves might make Calgary a little deeper, but you're basically going to depend a ton on Iggy.

New York Rangers

Best digi-players: Marian Gaborik (90), Hank (88), Olli Jokinen (85)

Strengths: hmmm ... depth maybe?

Weaknesses: Not much to like beyond Hank and Gaborik.

Trend: Lateral move, although Jokinen becomes New York's second best forward.

Appraisal: The Rangers are another team that will be selected often in online play because they have a large fan base. But really, aside from Gaborik and Lundqvist I can't see why you'd choose this team.

I feel like Hank's been underrated in video games for quite some time. Even though Kipper's had an admirable bounce-back season, there's no doubt in my mind that Lundqvist is a better goalie yet Kipper has always had a better (or at worst equal) rating. Psh.

Atlanta

Best digi-players: LOL

Strengths: If you win with them, you have every right to mock your opponent (unless it's their first time playing the game)

Weaknesses: Plentiful

Trend: WAY down

Appraisal: Kovalchuk was basically the only reason to choose the Thrashers and he's gone now. Is Atlanta now the worst team in the game? You could make a serious case that they are. Plus their jerseys are really dumb looking.

Anaheim

Best digi-players: Ryan Getzlaf (88), Scott Niedermayer (87)

Strengths: hmmm ... depth maybe?

Weaknesses: A lack of elite players beyond Getzlaf and Niedermayer

Trend: Slightly up

Appraisal: Since Hiller (84) and Giguere (85) were nearly identical ratings-wise, the Ducks made out pretty well in the video game world. Actually, with Blake (83) the Ducks have some solid forward depth now. Video games might be the one realm in which Vesa Toskala (79) isn't TOTALLY useless as his rating is more or less on par with other backups.

Still, trading away Pronger robs the Ducks of what made them a unique choice in video games. We may never see two D with 90 ratings on the same (non All-Star) team again considering cap constraints. *sniff*