I thought the Olympics was supposed to showcase amateurs. Now, I recognize that Russia screwed that up years ago, but I still have this idea. The USA women's hockey team just beat Finland 5-3. It was a pretty exciting game, partly because either Finland was ahead, or the game was tied for the first two periods. Only in the 3rd period did the USA take off. Both goalies worked hard, and the result was a win for us. However. I also watched Germany vs. Switzerland earlier. The Swiss achieved what they were hoping for--a goal was scored in the Olympics. Italy did the same--I've not caught their games, but saw some spots. I love Sarah Parsons on the US team. She is 18, a high school Sr. and really an amateur! I didn't like the German team, because all but one are in the army and thus are payed to play--making them pro's. I hate the fact that NHLers play in the Olympics. I don't think that the women on the US team who are hockey pro's should play either (ie those who coach college teams). I'm even conflicted about Division I college players. I'd rather have a team full of Sarah Parsons' out there. Seems more honorable, somehow.
I don't even watch anything else. But I feel the same way--if they are paid at any level--they art professionals, hence under centuries old rules, would not be competing in the once amateur competition.
I think the same way about theatre and music. If you get paid, you are a professional. There are many different levels, but the real difference is $ not the amount--just whether or not it exchanges hands. That is why I've always considered myself a theatre professional since 1970--I was paid all that summer to work at the Idyllwild School of Music and the Arts to be on the theatre staff. My professional level was quite humble--but it was there!
There are many who will never be pro atheletes, but it would be wonderful for the best amateurs of each country to compete, not a mix of pro's vs amateurs. I also think there should be a limit to how long the individuas can compete on the Olympic teams. But I guess if they had to remain amateurs, there would be no problem there.
6 comments:
D-I players are amatuers. The hockey teams should be made up of college players in D-I. I want to go back to have the stars all from BU! 1980 was Mike Eruzione, Jack O'Callahan, Jim Craig, and Dave Silk. This year BU is represented by Chris Drury, but he's so many years removed from the school it's not the same.
Ah well. Want a good tournament of college kids? THE BEANPOT.
OK, OK, OK! The reason I say I have reservations about college Div I is that , at least as far as I understand it, CURRENTLY, that is almost like being a pro for a woman. For the men that is not true.
One of the women--I think, yes, the goal tender for Finland,no, she's in Duluth. But SOMEONE attends OSU! Maybe on the Swiss team?
I agree with you, Mom,about the whole professional thing and what makes you a pro. That's why I'm now a professional designer, I was paid to design a set for Lamb's Players. Even though I also got school credit for it, I was paid actual money (and boy, was that cool!).
And we're al so proud of you,too, Lura--even those family members who haven't a clue what it is you do, recognize you as a pro.
But then who would Nike put in their commercials?!?!
Welcome, Miss Jay, Answer: the winners, of course. All the hockey players are wearing jersies with the Nike symbol in the (I think right hand) corner anyway!
Post a Comment