Blinded By The Light
Mark Stepneski cites a recent poll on The Hockey News website
regarding fan attitudes about the ongoing CBA battle. For the most part, the results are anything but surprising. In fact, two of the three questions confirm
what I’ve been saying all along:
1) Most fans will not stop watching hockey if there’s a lockout, and
2) ticket prices are the biggest concern people have with the league.
One finding, however, while not particularly shocking, is somewhat disturbing. When respondents were asked which side of the labor dispute they support, 40% said they believe in the owners’ cause, 12% side with the players, and 48% support neither party.
Personally, I would’ve expected a larger percentage of respondents to be in the latter category. While this poll takes into account the opinion of 11,000 people, I would like to think the majority of educated hockey fans realize that the owners are just as, if not more responsible, than the players for the current problems facing the league.
As I recall, it was the owners who refused to bargain in a cordial manner when the players went on strike ten years ago. When the negotiation process finally began, the owners proceeded to construct a CBA that was supposedly to their distinct advantage. Lest we forget, it was the owners who demanded the $1 million rookie salary cap, salary arbitration, and a restrictive free agency system.
Since then, ownership has utilized loopholes in the CBA to include bonus clauses in rookie contracts that can bump a first-year player’s salary up to $4 million dollars. The owners have voluntarily overpaid fringe players (while crying poverty), which subsequently has driven up salary arbitration awards. As a result, free-agent players, realizing there are bone-headed owners out there who are willing to overpay for their services, almost always jump ship to the highest bidder.
Can you really blame the players for going after the greenbacks? Granted, most of them don’t need (or earn) the kind of money they receive, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t at least try to attain the largest contract possible. Besides, were it not for greedy owners driving up salaries year-after year, restrictive free-agent players wouldn’t have as much leverage during holdouts. In reality, ownership is solely responsible for setting the “market value” of NHLers, and players are just looking to get their fair shake by measuring their worth against that of their peers.
I’m willing to bet the 40% of respondents to the Hockey News poll that say they support the owners are more
against the players than they are
in favor of the owners. Most fans just look at the players as greedy, spoiled brats that commonly leave a team via unrestricted free-agency to pursue greener pastures. Even though the departed player often expresses regret that his former employer couldn’t pony up enough dough to keep him around, most locals simply scoff at the perceived insincerity. Fans expect more loyalty from players they so passionately root for and pay to see perform on a nightly basis.
The problem facing hockey players in the everlasting public relations battle with the owners is that the
average hockey fan doesn’t care about fair market value. All he hears about is the
unwillingness of the players to agree to a salary cap that would drastically hinder the ability of the 30-point scorer to rake in extraordinary amounts of money. All he sees is the
players trying to relate to fans by comparing the average Joe’s working environment to that of the NHLPA. All he reads about is the players threatening to
sit out for the rest of their lives if that’s what it takes to keep the current CBA terms in tact (terms that were demanded by the owners).
The average fan seems to forget that the NHLPA submitted a preliminary proposal to the owners earlier this season that documented several concessions, namely a five-percent across-the-board pay cut for players. The proposal also suggested closing the current loopholes in the entry-level salary system, changing the salary arbitration format, and implementing a form of revenue-sharing to assist small-market clubs. Indeed, because the owners quickly shot down the proposal, the players’ goodwill bargaining gesture received limited exposure in the press. As a result, fans continue to look upon the players with scorn, even though the owners have yet to come to the bargaining table
with a reasonable proposal of their own.
I’m not saying the players are the good guys here. It takes two to tango, especially when it comes to labor strife. However, because the owners are better versed in the field of public relations, they’ve done a masterful job of suckering the fans into believing in their cause, even though ownership is primarily to blame for putting the NHL in a financial fetal position. For the past ten years, the owners have attempted to out-do each other by engaging in outrageous bidding wars for players, while disregarding their organization’s bottom line and sacrificing the future of the club. Conversely, the players have handsomely benefited from the utter incompetence and greediness of owners, having used their own economic system as a weapon against them.
It's rather obvious which side is going to win the PR battle here. Who wins the war is another story.
|
Can't Run From Politics
The folks at
Canucks Op Ed have expressed their displeasure with the recent accusations against so-called left-wing media outlets that have been attacking hockey for the last few weeks. Jeff and Alanah infer that political agendas have very little, if anything, to do with the anti-hockey sentiment that has lately dominated the mainstream press, noting that several traditionally conservative members of the media have teed off on the game and its violent culture, as well:
On the political spectrum, we ourselves are certainly not 'conservative'. But why should that make us anti-hockey? We've been as disgusted as anybody with the media's approach to hockey violence since the Bertuzzi incident. Plus we're on record as endorsing fighting in hockey... Aren't so-called 'liberals' supposed to hate that kind of thing? (And we could name at least a dozen friends who are left-wing, with similar opinions to our own. And some other more conservative friends who passionately hate hockey.) The point is, whoever likes or dislikes hockey, the line is not divided by who they vote for.
Jeff and Alanah are correct in stating an individual’s political stance will not influence his affinity for ice hockey. However, I would venture to say that the converse is true - an individual’s affinity for ice hockey is somewhat related to his political stance as it pertains to the game.
I’m not going to sit here and talk about
how politics and sports are intertwined, especially from an
internal management perspective. Nor will I examine the
past impact of politics on sports culture. Quite frankly, there isn’t enough time in a day to construct an article that lengthy. However, it is worth noting that the inherent nature of politics does indeed play a vital role in the explanation of varying opinions about the state of the game. Many folks will disagree, but the common arguments concerning hockey violence and the game’s entertainment value are very much examples of political expression.
Jeff and Alanah say they’re not concerned with what conservatives or liberals think about hockey, as they’d rather
entertain the non-political opinions of hockey fans. Unfortunately, the fact that differing opinions about the game do exist makes this separation relatively impossible. The basic fabric of politics revolves around the existence of constantly conflicting attitudes regarding the ideal notion of how a particular entity should be governed or controlled, be it a nation, or for the purposes of our discussion, professional hockey.
Admittedly, I am one of the columnists that has come out and stated the obvious - the mainstream media has handled the Todd Bertuzzi incident and its aftermath
in a very liberal fashion. Now, I don’t particularly care for the argument that claims the press took this approach because it is pre-disposed towards representing a respective political ideology. Nevertheless, I do believe that the subsequent commentary about excessive violence in hockey and the need for ground-breaking change were exemplary of an effort to advance a particularly liberal political agenda (or opinion, if you feel uncomfortable with the ‘agenda’ term). Conversely, the folks who vehemently defended pro hockey from the media horde, claiming the Bertuzzi incident was blown out of proportion and that hockey is fine the way it is, were taking a more conservative approach.
By no means am I suggesting the media or hockey fans deliberately entered the debate over the state of the game for the sole purpose of beating some sort of political drum. However, the fact of the matter is that the politics surrounding the issue are simply too prevalent to ignore:
• The liberal viewpoint, which does appear to be the most popular, claims the Bertuzzi incident is reflective of a pro hockey culture that encourages and, to a degree, glorifies vigilante justice. The conservative perspective states the Bertuzzi incident is being used as ammunition by those who want to see hockey’s ‘tough-guy code’ changed.
• The liberal mentality is possessed by folks that believe drastic measures should be taken by the league hierarchy to improve the game’s image. Those with a more conservative point of view argue that hockey’s naysayers will never be pacified, and that players should be allowed to continue policing themselves during games.
• Even if you consider the more practical aspects of hockey, political ideology still rears its ugly head. General Managers that are hoping to improve the fluidity of the game by proposing a set of rule changes, as well as the fans, broadcasters, and players that support such changes, clearly possess a very liberal outlook. On the more conservative hand, some GM’s, fans, and players subscribe to the hockey traditionalist school-of-thought, which is opposed to any significant tampering of the game’s dynamics.
The existence of these conflicting ideologies provides sufficient evidence that indicates contrasting opinions on debatable issues, even in the sporting world, are inherently political in nature. Quite frankly, were it not for politically-related disagreements, there would be no dissenting viewpoints, and subsequently, no reason for the daily editorializing that is offered on my site, and countless others. Open discussion, regardless of the subject matter, is what a democratic society is all about.
It’s easy to forget how politics infiltrate our daily lives. In fact, I’m willing to bet many folks make a concerted effort to disassociate themselves with anything political because of the corrupt stigma associated with the traditional scientific practice. These are the same people that have no interest in the political side of pro sports, as they resent the special-interests that have poisoned the purity of athletic competition. Unfortunately, political grandstanding has always been a part of the organizational sporting hemisphere, and the NHL is no exception.
Possessing a left-wing opinion doesn't mean an individual is a died-in-the-wool liberal. The same can be said of those who own a more conservative point of view. Still, the opinion itself has definitive political characteristics. Barring a repeal of the
First Amendment, it is safe to say the people who have a vested personal interest in future of the game of hockey – be they media mongers, players, coaches, or even fans – will make sure the battle for ideological supremacy remains alive and well for many years to come.
|
Refs Walk a Fine Line
In yesterday’s St. Petersburg Times, Lightning centerman Dave Andreychuk discussed the recent rash of stick attacks and sucker-punches in the NHL. The former Sabre refused to pin the blame on league officials, saying the incidents are clearly indicative of an extreme lack of respect amongst the players. However,
John Fontana disagrees with Andreychuk, claiming cheap shots would be less frequent if referees were better able to maintain some level of control during games.
For sure, the most respected senior officials are those that set the tone of a contest in the early going. They call a few penalties off the bat in an effort to let the players know what will not be tolerated during the course of the game.
As I’ve said before, current supervisor of officials Andy Van Hellemond was a master at this tactic during his days as a ref, which is the primary reason why he was assigned most of the league’s rivalry games. He would often lay down the law before the players had a chance to take the law into their own hands.
Still, as competent as Van Hellemond was as an official, there were many nights when games he worked got completely out of hand. The most vivid example I can remember is from October of 1988, when
Ranger defenseman David Shaw slashed Pittsburgh’s Mario Lemieux in the face early in the 3rd period of a 9-2 New York blowout. The attack set off a wild string of fights and line brawls to conclude the game, many of which were frighteningly brutal.
In that game, Van Hellemond tried to quell the edginess between the two Patrick Division rivals by sticking to his traditional, assertive routine. Unfortunately, because only the Rangers were able to capitalize on the plethora of penalty calls early on, the game became lopsided rather quickly. Down 8-1 before the halfway point of the second period, the Penguins’ frustration continued to boil as the match proceeded. Van Hellemond dished out a few misconducts in the middle stanza just to keep the players honest, but his efforts were for naught. Besides Shaw’s famous attack, several Pittsburgh players were ejected for serious stick violations, including Dan Quinn, as a result of his retaliatory spear on Shaw, and Bob Errey, who cross-checked Marcel Dionne in the back after the ninth Ranger goal (which was scored by rookie Brian Leetch).
My point here is that even the best officials can’t completely guard against cheap shots. Most senior referees do an admirable job of settling down games that show signs of excessive physicality, and outside of distributing several 10-minute misconduct penalties, there’s not much an official can do to prevent players from taking liberties with each other. On many occasions, an official has his hands tied, as if he does elect to impose a misconduct penalty against a particularly saucy player, the official is usually accused of being biased or asserting himself too much. It’s a lose-lose situation for the zebras.
It’s not a coincidence that the Shaw and Bertuzzi incidents both occurred during 9-2 blowouts. The fact of the matter is that, more often than not, pre-meditated stick attacks and cheap shots occur during lopsided games, which is precisely why I refuse to blame officials in any manner for the irresponsible actions of the players. Score-settling is relatively non-existent during tightly-contested matches, as evidenced in the much-anticipated March 3rd game between the Canucks and Avalanche, because players are considerably less willing to take a bone-headed major penalty that could cost their club two points in the standings.
With this in mind, you have to wonder if cheap shots aren’t so much the result of a player being incensed at his foe, but rather a by-product of his personal frustration in the quality of his own play (or lack thereof), not to mention the team’s performance. Even Mark Messier,
whose spear on Martin Strbak this past weekend occurred during a one-goal game, explained to the press afterwards that his careless act was reflective of his extreme disappointment with the Rangers’ atrocious season. Similar frustrations were mirrored in the Flames’ recent loss to Nashville, in which
pugilist Krzysztof Oliwa manhandled an official to cap off a night in which he (with a mere four minutes in ice time) and his team were outplayed and outclassed.
Officials are not baby-sitters, although they are expected to be by most fans. No matter how much a ref attempts to harness a particularly volatile hockey game, there are always instances where the players will decide to take matters into their own hands, despite constant warnings from the officiating crew. The
recent Ottawa/Philadelphia brawl-fest was a prime example – a well-refereed game that showed no signs of exploding for 58 minutes, despite Martin Havlat’s cross-check on Mark Recchi in the previous encounter between the two teams. Nevertheless, once the Flyers took a three-goal lead late in the 3rd period, all hell broke loose.
That’s the officials’ fault?
I applaud Dave Andreychuk’s comments, as it’s high time the players assumed responsibility for their own actions. Indeed, officials have a duty to uphold the integrity of the game in their own right, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that the players control what happens in a hockey game, not the officials. Referees do their best to nip over-the-top physicality in the bud early in games, and I think they accomplish that feat on most occasions. Regardless, it’s almost impossible for refs to completely eliminate juvenile behavior. Some players are just hell-bent on making themselves, officials, and the league look like incompetent fools, and no matter what preventative measures the league's striped sheriffs take during the course of play,
that will never change.
Right, Jody?
|
Untangling the Hockey Knot
• Earlier today,
Eric McErlain offered his endorsement of the overtime shootout format. He cites an article from
Buffalo News hockey correspondent Jerry Sullivan, who claims the NHL should smarten up and adopt the tie-breaking penalty shot contest in order to eliminate ties once and for all.
As someone who doesn’t particularly mind ties, I’m very torn about this concept. In my mind, if two teams compete for 65 minutes and can’t settle the issue, the game should end in a tie. Some nights, you’re just not going to have a winner. Whether it’s because of the goaltenders or tight-checking, a game ends in a tie because neither team is better than the other on that particular night. To me, there’s no need to get all bent out of shape over the settlement of a regular-season match. Call it a draw and move on.
However, I also realize that the league is in the entertainment business. Granted, a tie doesn’t necessarily reduce the enjoyment of a hockey game, but I will admit there is something anti-climactic about a draw. This was painfully evident to me earlier this month when Colorado and Vancouver engaged in a fabulous, high-octane, see-saw affair
that ended in a 5-5 tie. From lead changes to big hits to clutch goaltending, the game had everything – except a winner.
Whereas a year ago I would’ve disagreed with Eric, I now have to echo his sentiments. I’ve attended quite a few hockey games that ended in ties, and have always found myself not knowing how to react afterwards. Should I be satisfied? Should I be mad? In a way, I’d rather see my team lose than tie. Unless you’ve undergone the unpleasant experience, you can’t imagine how strange it is to come home and have your father ask you who won the game in Providence, only to have no answer for him.
Sure, a shootout takes away from the team aspect of a hockey game. Regardless, the league should at least give the format a try. The American League will be using it next season, and to be quite frank, I don’t think fans in the minors will find shootouts to be as exciting as they think. Even if the best player on the ice salvages a boring, trap-infested contest with a spectacular shootout goal to give his team a 2-1 win, fans will still feel they didn’t get their money’s worth. In essence, there will be a winner on the ice, but there won’t be a victor in the stands.
But that’s okay, Dad. Even if the game was awful, at least the P-Bruins won.
|
Disciplinary Politics
• The NHL came down hard on Wade Belak yesterday, handing the rugged Maple Leafs forward
an eight-game suspension for striking Colorado’s Ossi Vaananen in the face with his stick. Indeed, the lengthy ban was warranted, particularly in light of the Bertuzzi incident. However, I am absolutely livid about Colin Campbell’s gutless decision to suspend Mark Messier
for a mere two games for his vicious spear on Pittsburgh’s Martin Strbak.
You don’t have to go back that far in time to make the connection between Campbell and Messier, as they spent some quality time together on Broadway in the mid-90’s. However, in all honesty, I don’t think the lenient sentence Messier received was simply a by-product of his previous relationship with the league’s disciplinarian. I’m willing to bet Gary Bettman and the rest of the NHL brass had their say in the matter as well, which more than likely influenced Campbell’s ruling.
The league hierarchy knows this could be Mark Messier’s final season. At 43 years of age, the chances of ‘The Moose’ returning for a 26th term are extremely slim. Sure, Campbell could’ve laid the seven-game hammer down on Messier, but that would result in the final moment of Mark’s illustrious career consisting of his being escorted off the ice by a linesman after a brutal stick attack on an unsuspecting opponent. From the standpoint of Campbell and the league, such a dishonorable lasting image would be unfair not only to Messier, but to his fans as well.
This ass-backwards mentality is unbecoming of a league that is supposedly looking to rid itself of unprovoked stick fouls. While the Belak suspension is difficult to argue, you could make a case that its length is completely unfair considering the wrist-slap given to Messier. For sure, Belak’s reckless, baseball-like chop was different in the sense that it was a blow to the head. Understandably, the NHL is especially concerned with removing head shots from the game. Nevertheless, the consequences could’ve been just as dire for Martin Strbak, who was lucky enough to avoid a severe spleen injury following Messier’s spear.
It’s also interesting to note that Mess had been suspended on numerous occasions earlier in his career for various stick attacks. His rap sheet is actually quite lengthy:
• In January of 1984, Messier was suspended six games for striking Vancouver’s Thomas Gradin over the helmet with his stick. Gradin suffered a mild concussion.
• In December of 1984, Messier was banned 10 games for deliberately fracturing the cheekbone of Calgary defenseman Jamie Macoun. Messier was retaliating for having been boarded by Macoun earlier in the game.
• In October of 1988, Messier missed six games for striking Vancouver forward Rich Sutter in mouth with a high stick. Sutter suffered four broken teeth, and the Canucks appealed to the NHL with videotaped replays to ensure that Messier would be suspended.
• In March of 1993, Messier was suspended three off-days and fined $500 for swinging his stick at the head of Pittsburgh’s Ulf Samuelsson.
I’m willing to bet a lot of you folks don’t think of Mess as a stick-monger. Apparently the league doesn’t either, as since the Ranger veteran hasn’t been suspended in over ten years for a stick violation, he is not considered a repeat offender. Belak, on the other hand, does carry the repeater label as a result of his suspension a year and a half ago for elbowing then-Phoenix defenseman Todd Simpson. Throw in the fact that Belak is no more than strictly a role player, and you can see why his ban is considerably longer than that of an NHL legend.
It makes you wonder if Messier would’ve been booted for eight games if
he was the one who struck Vannanen in the head. Furthermore, it can be argued that while Belak’s stick-foul was reckless, Messier’s spear was even more disturbing because he was clearly intending to badly injure his target.
Contrary to
what Gabe at Hockeybird believes, Colin Campbell sent a definitive message with the Messier suspension that indicates he doesn’t hold a personal vendetta against the Blueshirts. On the contrary, it appears as if the former coach’s Ranger roots are protruding from his backside. Consequently, the reputation of the league continues to suffer, as yet another case of star favoritism has come to the forefront. Indeed, when handing out the Messier and Belak suspensions, the league exhibited a willingness to grant more consideration to the offender than the victim, while at the same time, completely disregarding malicious intent.
It seems to me like the league could use a lesson in discipline.
|
All I Have To Do Is Dream
When I was a boy, I very much enjoyed the art of storytelling. My kindergarten teacher, in particular, had the uncanny ability to keep me on the edge of my seat during a suspenseful tale of woe just after nap time. Being so young, I often found myself wrapped up in the plight of the protagonist, which greatly enhanced my enjoyment of the story.
To this day, I get the same kick out of fiction as I did 17 years ago. I still occasionally become engulfed in a story, especially when an undesirable fate seemingly awaits the main character. It’s a feeling that can be described as a sort of psychological arousal, which not only keeps the reader attentive, but results in a yearning for what will likely be an unanticipated climax.
Recent stories regarding the future of the NHL are just as compelling. Up until this month, columnists were spending their days dissecting the league’s financial state. However, in recent weeks, the attention has shifted to the game’s supposed deteriorating public image. Both angles provide everything a good story needs – suspense, uncertainty, and a potential cataclysmic conclusion.
If you think I’m stretching it a bit, observe the point-blank
questions posed by Steve Ovadia this weekend regarding the potential consequences of continued senseless violence in hockey:
How much more does the NHL expect fans to put up with? How many fans will stop watching and attending games simply to avoid the stigma of being some kind of loser who enjoys watching sociopaths chase a piece of rubber around the ice? How many parents will be scared to let their kids watch hockey?
Sounds like an enticing promotional introduction to a novel. Ovadia continues:
Commissioner Gary Bettman needs to step up and reclaim the league now, before the reputation of the game is irreparably destroyed. Bettman must truly do whatever is needed to take back the league. If this means free tickets, he must allow free tickets. If this means players playing less games and doing more community outreach, than he must sanction that. But if he lets the sight of Bertuzzi knocking a falling man's head into the ice become the last image we see before a lockout, then many fans will be lost when the lockout is over.
Can’t you just feel the tension building with each sentence?
I’d like to make it clear that I’m not attacking Steve personally, as he does great work, and is one of the first hockey sources I read every day. However, this over-dramatization is being echoed far too often as of late, and I’d like to put a few of the most common misconceptions to rest by addressing some of Steve’s concerns.
1. How much more does the NHL expect fans to put up with?
My question is, how much more of what? To me, the biggest problem facing the NHL from a fan perspective is rising ticket prices. Let’s forget about the borderline fans for a second and consider the die-hard spectators, like myself, that are continuously being discouraged from taking in a few games a year because he can’t afford an outlandish $55 ticket.
It’s not just a problem Gary Bettman faces. It’s a hockey-wide epidemic. I came to that realization this past summer when I found out first-tier tickets for P-Bruin games were going to cost $22 this season. Of course, the Boston Bruins operate the Baby-B’s, so the price increase was not a surprise, as the big club gets a percentage of the gate receipts in Providence. Nevertheless, for a minor-league club to command $22 for a ticket is absolutely asinine, and it provides ample evidence as to why AHL attendance numbers are the lowest in several years.
Expensive tickets for lower seats at hockey games are to be expected. However, the $55 ticket for an NHL game is usually good for a second-tier seat in most rinks, and
that is unacceptable. I don’t care how good the game is; you’ll never get your money’s worth in an upper seat at that rate. That is, if you can afford to pay.
But are ticket prices really that big a deal? Obviously not, as all I’ve been reading about is the game’s torn image.
2. How many fans will stop watching and attending games simply to avoid the stigma of being some kind of loser who enjoys watching sociopaths chase a piece of rubber around the ice?
As if there’s any less stigma surrounding fans who love watching a football player lunge at an opponent helmet-first in an effort to render him unconscious.
The answer to this question is simple:
None. No current hockey fans will stop watching the game. If we haven’t stopped because of the escalating ticket prices, low-scoring, and the lack of free-flowing action, then we’re not going to throw in the towel now. I can at least understand the image question if your concern is creating new fans outside of the traditional hockey market (and it shouldn’t be, because that, in itself, is a pipe dream), but to even entertain the notion that hockey fans will turn their back on a game they hold so dear is utterly ridiculous.
Why? Quite simply, I don’t think we, as hockey fans, have the guts. Baseball fans didn’t. We don’t either.
In a way, I wonder if the “stigma” that accompanies hockey’s poor position on the American sports radar screen is somewhat attractive for the game’s U.S. supporters. It’s as if we know deep down that hockey will never climb the national popularity ladder, and the valiant, scrappy effort being put forward by Gary Bettman to defy the odds seems to appeal to the rebelliousness possessed by so many hockey fans. It’s an ‘us-against-the-mainstream’ mentality, and we fully intend to continue the fight, even if it means sacrificing our virtues and the integrity of the sport.
3. How many parents will be scared to let their kids watch hockey?
None. Television has become the ultimate babysitting tool, and if Billy and Danny want to kill two and a half hours by enjoying a hockey game with dad, parents will be ecstatic.
Probably the loudest roar from the crowd during the
P-Bruins/Springfield game this past Friday occurred after Providence winger Colton Orr battled the Falcons’ Trevor Gillies in one of the longest fights I’ve seen in years. I made it a point to closely observe the reaction of the gathered congregation as the two combatants were skating towards the penalty box following the bout. Not surprisingly, children were jumping up and down, pumping their fists. Some were dancing in the aisle next to me. Men in business suits were high-fiving each other. One particularly jubilant feline in my section let loose a wild bellow that any opera singer would have been proud to hear. In fact, nearly every young lady I spotted was applauding, and several of them were alongside youngsters.
I’m scared to death just thinking about it.
Personally, I think tough-guy punch-ups are utterly pointless. They don’t contribute to the game in any fashion whatsoever, and more often than not resemble sideshow theatrics. Fighting should be a spontaneous activity, as I’ve noted many times. Regardless, most hockey fans – whether die-hard or borderline – love the violent nature of the game. Bodily contact and flaring tempers are part of the game’s attractiveness, and no matter what CNN says, that will never change. I’m even willing to bet many of the bleeding heart sports columnists that have been knocking the snot out of hockey in recent weeks, in reality, adore a good toe-to-toe scrap.
As Jamie Fitzpatrick astutely notes:
Most of (the criticism) didn’t feel like genuine outrage, just the professional indignation any media pundit can work up at a moment’s notice, the way an actor summons tears on demand.
Canucks Op Ed provides a link to
an article from Sports Fan Magazine that makes a plea on behalf of the game, similar to the material I’ve presented here on my site recently. It’s refreshing to know I’m not the only one preaching about hockey’s senseless quest to establish itself as the next best thing in America. Unfortunately, I’m starting to wonder if the unrealistic expectations set by Gary Bettman ten years ago have finally gone to the heads of hockey fans, many of whom continue to live in a fictional fantasyland where all dreams eventually come true.
It’s time to turn the page, folks.
• By the way, for the remainder of Lent, I am resuming my chocolate indulgence, while giving up any further writing on hockey’s public image. •
|
