January 25, 2007

NHL CONTINUES TO OPERATE WITH THEIR HEADS IN THE SAND

      The National Hockey League held their mid-season all-star classic Wednesday night in Dallas.  Don’t worry if you missed it—you’re not alone.  I, for one, had absolutely no intention of watching even one second of a game that has degenerated into a playful, afternoon beer league event with very little substance occurring outside of laughing and childish tomfoolery.  The lack of interest is a shocking indictment on the lack of growth and the subsiding passion of the sport’s fan base. This fact should give pause to those in control of this sport—this league has not come close to becoming what Commissioner Gary Bettman once proclaimed would be the ‘game of the future’.  While the game has changed over the past couple of years, and for the better, it hasn’t changed enough to garner the widespread appeal it seeks.  It won’t until the league recognizes that the game from the past is gone and they need to make more changes to take this game into the future.

       To exacerbate my point better let me state that I have never thought about taking my daughter to an NHL game.  I have no problem bringing her to a football game or a basketball game or a baseball game—but I won’t take her to a hockey game.  I won’t even take her to a junior game.  Why?  Because I am trying to teach my child that violence is not the answer, and with the severe lack of foresight exhibited by this league there exists the possibility that a fight could break out at any time during a game.  Then I would have to explain to my daughter why the officials seem to let the fight happen, why the fans get all worked up over the incident, and how the participants are not punished as they are allowed to continue in the game.  The league appears to promote violence.  What sort of message does this send to my daughter?  I can explain a bodycheck; I can even explain a hard football tackle—I just can’t explain two brawlers in the middle of the ice.

       Now all the dinosaur thinkers who remain stuck in a prehistoric age (Don Cherry I am calling you) and believe that fighting is part of the game should realize that this particular aspect is the shackle that needs to be removed.  Stop keeping the game of hockey prisoner.  Set it free.  Since the lockout ended the league has attempted to speed up play, to eliminate all the clutching and grabbing that brought the game down to a level I often referred to as wrestling on ice.  Great talents like Crosby and Ovechkin are able to utilize their talents.  The game is faster and fans have a greater appreciation for the skill level needed by the players not only to thrive but to simply survive in this league.  So why won’t the league make that final step and outlaw fighting from this game?  What—or more precisely who—are they afraid of offending?

       The argument for fighting resides in two corners.  First, it is believed that outlawing fighting will severely deplete the strong core of fans attending games.  The league believes that there is still too large a faction of fans that would be turned off by the game if fighting were taken out.  Second, it is believed that if fighting were eliminated it would surely increase the dangerous use of stick fouls and other unseemly acts that the players, at this time, can police.

       There is a famous hockey quote from Conn Smythe (or was it Stafford) that if you can’t beat them in the alley you can’t beat them on the ice.  This is the ideology behind fighting.  Beyond the simple fact that if you fought in the alley you’d be arrested, fighting on the ice is a powerful deterrent for families to attend games (mine for one).  The belief that the small percentage of attendees (are they really fans?) should dictate the rules of hockey is akin to letting those car race fans that watch for the accidents to determine the rules of conduct at speedways.  If the NHL would simply let those people leave the hockey arena and find their bloodlust in the arenas created for them (Ultimate Fighting comes to mind) how many families might replace them?  It may surprise the league to know that the average American family member still believe “Slap Shot” is an accurate portrayal of the sport.  And that average American family member will likely never spend a dollar to watch their sport.

       As for the notion that fighting keeps all other fouls to a minimum—that is simplistic and child-like thinking.  If the league decides that certain fouls need to be eliminated from the game then they will simply mandate that their officials severely penalize those that commit them.  If players are made to understand that their actions will result in penalties that could hinder their team’s chances for victory then those actions will quickly end.  The league mandated that hitting from behind was a penalty—the number of those types of fouls have decreased since.  If officials call the fouls—the number of fouls will eventually lessen. 

       The NHL needs to start looking ahead, and not be content to stand pat.  It has done wonders in eliminating all those penny ante antics that severely curtailed the action and led Mario Lemieux to call it a “garbage league”.   The league has less fighting in it today simply because teams can’t afford (due to salary cap restraints) to keep pugilistic specialists on their rosters.  All that’s left is to remove the final fragments of its former self.  Fighting in hockey should result, like the other major sports leagues (NBA, MLB, NFL) in fines and possible suspensions.  Its elimination will not lessen the physical quality of the game. 

       Hockey is by nature a physical sport.  It is replete with a varying array of skills and should be played at a fast and intense pace.   It just doesn’t belong in the alley anymore.

Read more of Michael Hobson at www.thefanview.com

E-mail: mhobson@thefanview.com

Preview my new fictional novel A Walking Parody at www.michaelghobson.com

Check out my weekly radio guest appearance Saturday 8:20 am at www.team990.com