Olympic thrills major coup for NHL? Not so much

The question, of course, was inevitable, so you knew it would come up both immediately and often:

Namely: What kind of bounce would the NHL get from the spectacular end to the Olympic hockey tournament?

And the answer was always wrong, because the true answer is -- none.

Nationalistic fervor doesn't translate to the NHL. (AP)

Sunday's 3-2 win by Canada was a great spectacle, but it was a spectacle, and people are suckers for spectacle. It was a gathering of the two best national teams in the world as judged by the tournament format, and people love watching the two best at anything go at it. We are a planet of label-shoppers, and we have been since the advent of and subsequent dominance by our television overlord.

Plus, it was the final game. Plus it was sudden death. Plus it was two bordering countries who regard each other with a level of safe yet mutual disdain. It was better than any other matchup could have been -- even U.S.-Russia.

That was the backdrop, and it is one that no NHL matchup can ever hope to approach, no matter how fervently its most devoted fans desire it. That's why the question itself about how the NHL could benefit from the Olympics was stupid, and always has been.

The NHL is its own show, and is entering its own tournament. The desperate jockeying for playoff spots, fueled by Wednesday's trade deadline, is pretty good stuff. When the playoffs begin, anyone who wants to enjoy them will, because it is better than any other sport's playoffs, and by a pretty significant margin.

But its audience is a static one, because all the open minds on the subject have been gathered, and all the closed ones are immovable. Nobody is going to watch the Olympic final and say, "That was great, and where do I get more?" because there is no more, at least not until Sochi in 2014, and only if the NHL doesn't get all stiff and cranky about opting in again.

Besides, not even the Pittsburgh Penguins can claim to be an actual nation, no matter how many times fan bases claim to be such. And despite all the warnings from all those folks who lived through the Cold War that nationalism in sport is a bad idea, nationalism in sport as a concept has won, if only because there is nobody left to object to it.

In short, the NHL loaned its players to a cause that entertained spectacularly but will offer very little in actual return, save some expensive advertising. That alone would, you would think, make Gary Bettman want to convince the owners and general managers who object to losing three weeks of playing time to stay on the right side of the argument. The Olympic tournament is a good idea on its face because it might get some anti-hockey types to admit that in some form, the sport is really quite the show.

But in an absolute, narrow-minded, selfish, money-based sense, the anti-Olympic owners are right, because the NHL will not get any of the new fans that the Canada-U.S. game lured. They came to root for country and grand spectacle, with a side of something-cool-is-going-to-happen-because-all-my-friends-say-so.

And in all honesty, Nashville and Calgary battling for the eighth playoff spot isn't going to replicate it. The trade deadline won't replicate it. And the Stanley Cup Finals won't replicate it either.

These seem self-evident to any rational thinker, but still the question was asked -- what can this do for the NHL? And the answer is nothing because more seats will not be sold, more sets will not be tuned in, and more coverage will not be afforded it. The Olympics work the same way as the World Cup in soccer -- it is its own entity, a gathering of the very best the sport has to offer, and because there is no equivalent, there is no equivalent benefit.

And we know this because hockey didn't explode in the 1980s after the Miracle On Ice. And we know this because Major League Soccer has taken far less hold than the foreign league broadcasts that are now so easily found. It found its niche, it held its niche, but it hasn't grown its niche. And no, expansion doesn't count because expansion is never about growing the game, it's about getting new fees for the existing owners by putting the sport in markets that by and large don't really care about it.

So was the Olympic tournament good? No, it was great. Should it be repeated? Only every four years. Will it expand the market for the NHL? No, only for Olympic hockey. The NHL remains on its own, doing its best for itself in its own weird and often convoluted way. If you like it, you still do. If you don't, you still won't.

And if you dispute this based on how well Sunday's game warmed you, well, all we'll say in response is that history doesn't support your view. It doesn't mean you should have enjoyed the Olympics any less. They were a great moment that stands alone, and the sport can't ride its imaginary coattails to any other destination. That's just the way it plays.

Ray Ratto is a columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle.