This post is going to be brutally honest but it needs to be said....
Welfare teams as I like to refer to those teams that cannot economically survive without outside assistance. They exist. Bettman coddles them. (I love hockey with every cell in my body, but one of my major peeves about Gary Bettman's NHL is how he assists the welfare teams.) The economically self-sufficient teams support them. But should they exist?
No. While the NHL is a sport it's also a business. And businesses cannot thrive if they continually pour money into failing ventures. It's just bad business sense.
I'm in no way disrespecting the players or their loyal fans. And perhaps they don't want it viewed this way but it has to be.
The league cannot survive the burden of supporting teams that are economically failing without risking the welfare of the league itself.
This leaves you with three options.
1. Move the teams to places where they will economically thrive and prosper. And, yes, in all likelihood this means Canada. (Deal with it.)
2. Revoke the franchises and contract the league. (Enough said there.)
3. Find a rapid solution to the financial problems and implement it immediately.
Do I think teams like Atlanta, Pittsburgh and Phoenix should have been or should be bailed out? No. Not at the expense of the league or to pro sport itself.
Sacrificing the whole for one franchise to exist in an economically hostile environment isn't just poor business sense, it's just plain stupid.
(Why do we keep going down this same road?)
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Bettman, Refs, Golden Boys & The NHL
What's wrong with the referees in the NHL? I'm flat out saying that I don't think there is a conspiracy. What I do think is that there is bias; a bias that comes from a few places.
First and foremost: Gary Bettman. He's re-imaged the league and as far as I'm concerned it's for the worst. He took a failing Penguins team and created an untouchable one. Should he have? No, but that's a different article. The fact is that he did. And in the process he unconsciously conditioned everyone to bow down to them. No one wants to dirty the image of the chosen few so they get the benefit of the doubt when they shouldn't.
I distinctly remember a certain golden boy sliding feet first into a goalie allowing the puck to go past the goalmouth unanswered. No offense but it's sort of hard to catch a puck when you're bowled over onto your back. The goal stood. My point? Anyone else and it's waived off for goalie interference.
The problem lies in the fact that it's not an isolated incident. Just last week a Pens player cross-checked a Flyers player into the Pens goalie. The Flyers' Hartnell had to sit in the sin bin. (I'm using my team as an example, however, it applies across the board.) I’m sorry but Hartnell wasn’t the reason for the goalie getting knocked out, the goalie’s teammate deserved all that credit, but Hartnell sat instead.
Bettman has created the idea that the pens are infallible and that has settled into the subconscious of the refs. But is he alone? No.
The media is helping to throw wood onto the fire. The Broad Street Bullies haven't existed in decades yet every week the current team is called it. So the Flyers conjure up the idea of the bullies and dirty players. This constant repetition also helps to solidify the unconscious bias. Why would it be anyone but Hartnell's fault if the Pens goalie was run over? He's a dirty player and has done it before, therefore he must be at fault now.
It’s a vicious cycle of unconscious bias that threatens to cheapen the sport and the league.
Careful NHL you are treading on dangerous water. The worst part? You don't even know it (nor do you care).
(For my cousin since he asked for it....)
First and foremost: Gary Bettman. He's re-imaged the league and as far as I'm concerned it's for the worst. He took a failing Penguins team and created an untouchable one. Should he have? No, but that's a different article. The fact is that he did. And in the process he unconsciously conditioned everyone to bow down to them. No one wants to dirty the image of the chosen few so they get the benefit of the doubt when they shouldn't.
I distinctly remember a certain golden boy sliding feet first into a goalie allowing the puck to go past the goalmouth unanswered. No offense but it's sort of hard to catch a puck when you're bowled over onto your back. The goal stood. My point? Anyone else and it's waived off for goalie interference.
The problem lies in the fact that it's not an isolated incident. Just last week a Pens player cross-checked a Flyers player into the Pens goalie. The Flyers' Hartnell had to sit in the sin bin. (I'm using my team as an example, however, it applies across the board.) I’m sorry but Hartnell wasn’t the reason for the goalie getting knocked out, the goalie’s teammate deserved all that credit, but Hartnell sat instead.
Bettman has created the idea that the pens are infallible and that has settled into the subconscious of the refs. But is he alone? No.
The media is helping to throw wood onto the fire. The Broad Street Bullies haven't existed in decades yet every week the current team is called it. So the Flyers conjure up the idea of the bullies and dirty players. This constant repetition also helps to solidify the unconscious bias. Why would it be anyone but Hartnell's fault if the Pens goalie was run over? He's a dirty player and has done it before, therefore he must be at fault now.
It’s a vicious cycle of unconscious bias that threatens to cheapen the sport and the league.
Careful NHL you are treading on dangerous water. The worst part? You don't even know it (nor do you care).
(For my cousin since he asked for it....)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)