sniper wrote:I like that the pros get to play. The Olympics should be the best competing against the best. If it's amateur vs amateurs what is that really proving? That you are the best of group that isn't good enough to make the pros? Who cares about that?
I wish they were held every year. The every 4 year thing is ok, but you could have a participant who might have won something miss out due to injury and then 8 years will have gone by and they aren't at their physical peak anymore. It's more of a who happens to be best at the time the games are held than a who is the best in the world. Most of the time it's going to be the same person/team, but having the event held more frequently would remove any doubt.
The competition to me is really about testing each country's entire development system. You pick the best players the country has produced and set them against eachother every 4 years. Sure a single player missing from the competition might have a huge impact on a team like Slovakia (Chara, for instance). But Stamkos missing from Canada is not going to matter all that much, which is a testament to their hockey development system.
It's great that the US is now an elite team. Goes to show how far hockey has come in this country.