What has become of the game we loved so much?
If I speak in the plural, rather than the singular, it is simply because it seems everywhere I turn I find debate on the status of the NHL game from a multitude of angles and varying opinions. Disatisfaction flies rampant from the casual and passionate fan, from players, from league officials, and from broadcasters and media.
Everyone involved has their dime and gripe on where the game is at. I'm hardly alone in my disillusionment.
All agree that much is wrong about the game today. Most agree to disagree on the fix and where to start.
Initially, I must state I totally agreed that the game needed some tinkering. Coming off a locked out season, hockey was in need of a launchpad promotion to revive and stir newfound interest. I, like many others, had the lurking feeling the popularity of some changes catored too much to the fairweather Johnson's of hockey fandom, and not enough to the game's die hard fans. To put it bluntly, there was a south of the border reality that clashed with a Canadian viewpoint in regards to the overhaul of the NHL as we knew it.
A year and a half into this experiment is enough gnawing on bitter fruit. It must be said that the majority of empty seats are not in the snow zone.
This is a crisis time for the league whether they realize it or not. Perhaps even more crucial than they realize. While sitting out the game for an entire year created a thirst for the game, enduring it's growing pains is becoming increasingly agonizing. Fans are being turned off in droves. While the league remains quietly concerned, it continues to spin the tired yarn that all is well.
It is business as usual in Canada. In other parts, it's a different story altogether.
The trouble lies in the absence of a consensus of what is most wrong. There are so many areas of concern, league governors hardly know where to begin. Taking a back step, it is clear that the NHL tried to do too much too soon to repair the game's reputation as a major sport. Turning back and repairing error is not a league strongpoint.
The dilema lies in the fact that certain moves were positive. Opening the game up offensively by cracking down on neutral zone fouls has served to highlight the mass of talent in the league. On any given night, fans are blessed with highlight reel performances that become tomorrows water cooler talk. Whether it be the exploits of Ovechkin, Crosby, Briere, or Malkin, fans are talking of games well after they are played. The fact that previously insurmountable leads are no longer foregone conclusions keeps fans in their seats. The fact that more teams remain in a playoff hunt longer ought to be what keeps those seats warmed longer.
The problem is, it isn't exactly working out as planned. How to warm an empty seat is not a global warming issue solved by the Kyoto accord!
While all out offensive explosions make for titilating scripts, the subtleties of the game have been overlooked.
The nature of the game of hockey, it's accent on speed and prowess versus physicality, has all but been removed. It is robbing the game of its soul while shortchanging the spirit of competitive play.
At the heart of the bleeding, lies the conundrum that is officiating. It was only a matter of time before this zit popped its puss.
While the league has imposed a stricter set of foul crackdowns, it was all but inevitable that the day would come when such a whip cracking would coil back.
Have you noticed, as I have, that with more to call in terns of fouls, that more is now being missed?
It is almost as if the league has memoed referees to ease back some. I see more and more of the so called new rules being tolerated, almost ignored. I see confused players, game in and game out, frustrated by inconsistancy. I see coaches up in arms, questioning referees without answers. I see games outcomes, altered by calls or non-calls, pretty much on a nightly basis.
The NHL continues to spin their version of the truth with a total disregard for the fans astute game knowledge. They interpret the declining number of calls as a sign that players are adapting to the rule changes. What a bunch of hogwash that is!
The simplicity of the equation is as bare as this. With more calls for the officials to make, comes the rising likelyhood that there is obviously more calls to miss. With four on-ice officials to collectively turn a blind eye, it has fans leaving games shaking their heads at the dubiousness of the rules instead of the overall content of the games excitement.
Perhaps what the NHL failed to seize was the perspective from a losing teams side.
By making tie games extinct, which was one of their goals, it has essentially outlawed what once was a proper outcome of a game. It was said and often criticized that NHL hockey was that last sport that awarded points for ties. They sought to eliminate this so-called sister kissing with the advent of the overtime loss and the shootout loss. While it has parlayed itself into the expected excitement in some quarters, the awarding of 3 points - 2 for a win, 1 for a loss - has negated the importance of a win in and of itself. The added point has served only to falsify standings and an illusion of parity.
I cannot make sense of 23 teams out of 30, playing .500 hockey! Look up the word abomination, if you will. I find that this method of sugarcoating losses, absolutely contrary to a teams rightful reality.
One goal the NHL seeks to achieve is the creation of rivalries. It has erroneously believed that increasing the number of games versus divisional rivals to eight, and tightening the standings, would assist in this. It is now being told that it is hardly happening. In Chicago and Boston, where hockey was once a hotbed of interest, 10,000 empty seats are showing up nightly to not watch the Blackhawks and Blue Jackets play four meaningless regular season games. This is no way to grip a season ticket holder and convince them to lay down thousands of dollars yearlong in hopes of finding passionate and embattled play.
Many believe that playoff series are what creates rivalries most. Again, they are dead wrong. With eight of sixteen teams eliminated come the first round, how often can rivals meet in the post season? While repeated playoff matchups do lead to rivalries, the scenarios can hardly be planned.
Offsetting this worthy argument are teams who decry the fact that certain elite players and teams currently only appear in their town once every three years. This fact is hot on the NHL agenda. Imagine holding season tickets to Coyotes games and only seeing the aforementioned Crosby or Ovechkin every thrid year. It's an outragious notion that the pursuit of divisional rivalries that don't exist cannot buy back.
This week in the league, the NHL has swung a promo angle terming it "Rivals Week". On Sunday, we witnessed a Rangers and Islanders tilt that was quite exciting. Back to back Ducks - Kings games were also of interest. A Bruins and Canadiens matchup on Monday resulted in another game that was fiercly competed and instantly forgotten in the midst of a schedule that sees rivals meet eight times.
Before the Habs - Bruins game, ceremonies honoured these past heated rivalries and it reminded me only of everything the game misses.
In a between game interview, Habs legend Guy Lafleur, no stranger to controversy and total political uncorrectness, hit the nail on the head. While almost terming today's game as a version of flag football on skates, Lafleur decried the total absense of any passion in meetings between what would be rivals these days.
Lafleur pointed the finger directly at league rules that curb the basic competitive nature of the beast on skates known as a hockey player. Surprisingly, but not without insight, Lafleur suggested that the lack of heat, blood, and sweat rising from the games was due in no large part to how the officiating obliterates any chance of incidences occuring that lead to heated mixups, fights, physicality, and henceforth retribution and on ice paybackback from such play. He singled out the instigator rule as being a detriment to such things. He mentioned that the absense of a defenseman's ability to play a rugged game is leading to pansy style hockey.
He abhored the crackdown on fouls natural to the spirit of the game as being a prime reason a regular season game does not rise above anything beyond meaningless in the larger scheme of things. In his opinion, Lafleur basically stated that unbridled passions be allowed to flow.
In an eigthteen year career, it must be noted that Guy Lafleur dropped the gloves a total of three times.
In those years, he was likely the target of an opponants wrath countless times. He played his best games when his talents were key to the outcome, regardless of the bounty placed on his being neutralized by whatever means or threats possible.
Don't think that greats such as Bobby Orr, Gordie Howe, or Wayne Gretzky weren't motivated to perform at higher standards for the same reasons.
Lafleur went on to state that he initially warmed to shootouts, only to fall back on the fact that with a point in the bank, teams played to roll the dice on the overtime or shootout outcome. The sad ending he said, cheated fans of impassioned team versus opponant play. It was of his mind that games be settled in the same manner as a playoff game. Play the overtime until a team wins it, with no points awarded to the loser.
Pretty cut and dried - with no iffy outcome as to who should have won. I can't say such a scenario would be unpleasant, unsatisfactory, or inconclusive.
It would heal much of what ails the NHL.
That and a more balanced schedule for starters.
6 comments:
The reason why rivalries worked so well in the 80s is because division rivals played each other something like 10 times in the regular season AND had a pretty good chance of meeting in the playoffs, due to the divisional format. It worked pretty well; how many times did the Habs and Nords or Habs and Bruins square off in the 80s? Or Oilers and Flames? They played often, and they played often in games that mattered, be it for first in the division, first in the league, or a berth in the conference finals. Combine that with a high tolerance for the sort of borderline play that tends to ignite brawls, and you have some fan-friggin-tastic hockey. I've noticed a waning interest in my own household (well, okay, me) because no one's allowed to get mad anymore. Every time there's a gathering that might turn into something, the refs break it up, or even worse, they break themselves up after a few unkind words.
That's not to say that more fighting is the be-all and end-all of fixing NHL hockey, but certainly, there seems to be a growing sentiment that the NHL has cleaned up its act a bit too much. Violence sells in the States, and the sooner the idiots in charge realize that, the better for all of us.
The divisional format worked well in that regard. Too bad it can't be returned to with so many teams. Unless a 4th division per conference (Yikes, 32 teams!) is set up they can't get to that type of playdown again. I miss it, although it tended to get redundant. It also eliminated the possibilities of an Oilers - Flames final or a Leafs - Habs meeting beyond the semi finals. I'd like to see an "anything is possible" format for the Stanley Cup final, where anyone can meet any given year.
The problem is that it is hard to have one thing without losing another.
First this league needs to make the regular season more vital. While there is no shotage of excitement among teams playing in the northeast division, others like the central suffer from indifferent games all year long.
Finding the right balance is not as easy as it looks.
i'm not sure about the 'violence sells' thing. i mean, the sports that are huge in america (basketball, football, baseball) don't condone fighting within the boundaries of the game. i have yet to see ultimate fighting catch on in a big way, even though it's sold on the violence.
generally speaking, the stereotype that i encounter most in the states from non-hockey fans is that the sport is thuggish and involves minimal skill or strategy. most americans aren't even aware that there is such a thing as the 'new nhl', much less complaining about it becoming a girly sport.
bottom line, hockey had the entire 20th century with plenty of fighting to build a fan base in the U.S., and it didn't work. so i'm skeptical that something has miraculously changed and now fighting is going to attract americans in droves
Hockey is a different breed of game. It's not comparable to baseball or football in anyway - the dynamic is completely different. In ball, a set of down or a half an inning sees a team on the offensive, while in hockey (much like basketball or soccer) team attack and defend all at once. As hockey has speed and hitting in it's virtues, the agression behind it's passion manifests itself into slashing, cross checking, tripping, etc. Players, of course carry sticks, which become more than offensive weapons at times. It's only human nature that emotions spill over and gloves are dropped.
Ultimate fighting may not have caught on, but the WWF (or whatever it's calling itself these days) surely has.
Fighting and violence are two different things altogether. One has a place in the game, the other does not. Not to suggest that violence and things that border on it do not occur, it just can't be denied that controversy sells.
For better or worse, take the recent Michael Richards mess as an example. As despicable as the whole sad thing was, it got people talking, tuning into shows, reading papers, not to mention the online hits to YouTube.
Hockey has sold itself in the same way at times. It just hasn't catored to it by denigrating to the circus-like behavior of a movie such as Slap Shot.
To many Americans, that movie encompasses their opinion of the game, regardless of how falsely representative it was of the overall hockey world.
The trouble with hockey catching on in certain areas of the U.S. has never had anything to do with violence. Mainstream media might like to put that spin on it, that the violence is a turnoff, but it's a load of crap. Since when have Americans turned their noses at violence?
Look at movies the likes of Rambo, the WWF,the fascination with shows like CSI or Cold Case Files, and their history in war. I could go on, but it's pointless.
Americans haven't warmed to hockey in spots because Americans will not embrace anything that is too identified with another country's culture - point blank. The evidence in this is how they have ridiculed hockey in the past by treating as a fringe sport.
Jokes about Canadiens living in igloos with tuques permeate their knowledge span of Canada in great parts of the U.S.
Have you seen Weird Al Yankovic doing "Canadian Idiot"? It's a hoot!
Weird Al does know better - he's just profitting from the stereotying from an American perspective while laughing all the way to the bank!
I have never been to or seen a hockey game where fights break out and people turn away. While I hope to never see it at my daughters games or in minor sports, it has always been an accepted offshoot of the nature of the beast. Taming it leads to passiveness and it doesn't work.
Open any issue of SI and look at the meager hockey content - it's paltry.
I don't have an issue with how Americans choose to perceive the game - it's their right. Many of them see hockey the same way I look at soccer and cricket (LOL).
What bugs me is that the NHL has not learned from it's errors. It has not clued into the fact that their is a limited market for growth. It continues to compromise the essense of the game to sell it south. Gimmicks like the shootout, the streamlined uniforms we'll hate next season, the glow puck, and the overall diluting of it's fierce competitiveness all gnaw at me.
Where hockey in the States has been embraced - Philly, Detroit, Minnesota, Boston - there is a mentality and a history that constantly gets overlooked.
It's leaving the game alone that will sell it.
Trying to make it acceptable in Phoenix and Nashville is way beside the point.
Ever try to teach a pig to sing? I can't happen and it just annoys the pig!
oh, i could write volumes about america's fascination with violence and not even begin to encompass the strangeness of it. moreover, i agree that changing the game in the hopes of acquiring a larger american fan base is futile. my main point was that it's silly to argue that bringing back more fighting will attract americans- if it didn't do so in the past 50 years, why would it now? whatever attracts americans about violence, it's more complex than simple bloodlust.
i'm interested in the statement: "Fighting and violence are two different things altogether. One has a place in the game, the other does not." Can you explain that a bit more?
E - Pardon me for assuming that the sentence you quoted was self explanatory!
After you had posted, I questioned a pair of friends on it's meaning, and they got it, based on my intent.
From your questioning however, I do realize it's lameness. It is wide open to interpretation, considering points of view.
It might well be one of the most absent minded statements I have offered in a response.
My explanation for it, would be this.
Sadly, violence is in the eyes of the beholder. To some, a hockey fight does constitute violence. I do understand that.
From the perspective of my wife and two hockey playing daughters, I have seen them shudder and question the purpose of throwing knuckles in the midst of a game.
However, to the long time atuned hockey fan, it is merely a facet of the game.
Having been a fan, a coach, and a father, I do respect and understand that both points of view have merit.
It may break it down this way - A ticket paying fan sees the fisticuffs as part and parcel of NHL hockey. A casual viewer may decry such a thing as outragious behavior in what is merely a game.
As for my statement being that they are different matters altogether, the best distinction would involve the excitement that was created from the old Bob Probert versus Troy Crowder knucklefests countered by the Bertuzzi-Moore incident of a few years back.
While the antics of pugilists such as Probert, Crowder, and Tie Domi, enlivened games via unbridled passion, the Bertuzzi incident was beyond a simple fight. In my mind and eye, it was out and out thuggery that had no place within the confines of the game. The quality of the contest, the particular game itself, was overshadowed by brutality.
That, my friend, will never, and should never, have a place in the game.
I would tend to include in the category of things beyond the game, anything involving sticks swung at heads, runs at players after a whistle is blown, and the odd circus stupidy that arises before and after contsets. Names such as Dale Hunter, Marty McSorley, and Mike Milbury come to mind.
I hope that clears up the fuzzy, grey area statement I made.
Damn, I only proofread my posts - hardly ever my comment responses! Guess I just rattle them off too fast!
Post a Comment