April 5, 2007

NHL NEEDS TO MAKE RULE CHANGES TO SAVE ITS GAME

      Something occurred at the NHL head offices in New York recently—the doors were left open and some unexpectedly intelligent thought somehow floated in.  League policeman Colin Campbell actually had the nerve (epiphany) to suggest that maybe, kind of, sort of…the league should take a look at fighting and maybe, kind of, sort of…eliminate it from the game.   This kind of progressive thinking, not seen in the NHL—and usually not allowed—elicited the usual angry responses from the non-thinking (what’s an epiphany?) hockey followers (can you say Don the dinosaur Cherry?) who believe their game is beyond reproach and perfect as is.  But this kind of thought process needs to actually go beyond the thinking and suggesting stage for the NHL to survive into the 21^st century.

      That’s right—the word I used wasn’t flourish; it was survive. 

       If you look close enough you’ll see that better than half the teams in the league are struggling to break even.  The lockout was needed to bring spiraling salaries in line with the income generated by the league and its teams, but it was enough to simply keep the teams alive, to keep their expenses reasonable.  But going forward the league knew that while its expenses could be kept manageable there needed to be an increase in income to keep the league together—and that hasn’t happened, yet.  Why?  Because only a tiny percentage of the North American population, typically those that live along the U.S./Canada border and north, has any interest in the sport.

       As long as the majority of the sports loving, sports watching and sports paying public believe that hockey is an out of control sport played by violent, stick-carrying thugs with missing teeth, who are looking to pound on anything that moves this sport will remain confined to that very tiny percentage.  And if you think I‘m being extremist in my description--if I’m, exaggerating to make a point, then think twice because that’s the way most believe hockey is played.   And if you’re one of those fans that believe the sport is fine the way it is and that I’m just a card-carrying member of the wimp of the month club then fine—be happy with your small little sport that barely registers on the meter of the sports public at large.  Pretty soon the NHL will have just a few American clubs—cities along the border—and won’t have the money to be able to attract the best international players.  It will be, in effect, a minor league.

       Of course there are those who believe that if fighting were eliminated from the game interest would drop and stick fouls would increase.  Once again, that’s shortsighted thinking on both accounts.  If the league demands that its officials crack down on stick fouls (any player that raises his stick or uses his stick in an aggressive and abusive manner is subject to penalty) or commits a head foul, or fights, then you will see stick fouls and head injuries and fights decrease.  If the league suspends players who abuse these rules then you will see these infractions slowly eliminated from the sport.  The NBA suspended Carmelo Anthony 15 games for throwing a punch—ask yourself how many other NBA players have thrown punches this season? 

      To those that believe the interest in the sport will suffer if fighting is taken out—the argument goes, “when a fight takes place everyone drops what they are doing to watch.”   Of course they do.  Humans have a perverse attraction to violence.  That’s why there are successful videos that portray the “most devastating car crashes” or television shows that have lists like “the 50 best beat downs in sports”.    It’s why when a car accident occurs on the street drivers slow down to see what happened.  It’s why when there is a fire a large group of people gathers to watch.  It’s why when an individual threatens to jump off a building a crowd gathers to witness the event.  Does that mean we should set it up in advance to have accidents take place on the streets, to have fires set, and to hire suicide jumpers?   

      Ask yourself—are you a hockey fan who loves fighting?  And then ask yourself—would your interest in hockey suffer if fighting were eliminated?  If you answered yes to the second question then ask yourself another question—do you really love hockey?  There are many other avenues to satisfy that violent, bloodthirsty side—boxing wrestling, ultimate fighting etc.  And if you believe that the elimination of fighting will reduce the aggressiveness of the sport ask yourself this—does playoff hockey, where fighting is nearly non-existent, strike you as being non-aggressive?

       The league has begun to give the game a much-needed face-lift, and those changes have succeeded in making the game more enjoyable.  It has begun to realize that it’s best players need to be protected, need to be given the space to flourish, and then need to be promoted and marketed.  But it can’t stop now.  It needs to finish what it has begun. 

       Or it will die a slow death.

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

Follow my weekly sports commentary at 8:20 am Saturday at www.team990.com