There's only one pertinent or interesting topic today, and that would be Darryl Sutter's tin foil hat rantings at his press conference in Tampa Bay yesterday. And here comes a very long winded rant by yours truly...
Of course some people (like Bob McKenzie or Eric Francis) will say, "What's the big deal, it's an obvious ploy to deflect the attention from his team or get them focused, he's just doing his job, blah blah blah," and I personally hate that line of reasoning. So, it's okay to act like a major a-hole and slander the integrity of the league you work for with unfounded and paranoid rantings because it's just a ploy for the better of your team? No, sorry. That's weak.
I heard the same reasoning when Gretzky put on his own tin foil hat at the Olympics two years ago and it stunk then and it stinks now. Not everything is supposed to be fair game in the name of victory in sports. It's pretty much the same logic that has people say everything is fair game in the name of profit, such as exporting jobs overseas. Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing against the rights of Darryl Sutter or Wayne Gretzky to say what they want, just like I'm not arguing against the rights of a corporation to export their jobs overseas. But there's also the concept of integrity, something that certainly isn't as sexy circa 2004 as a victory or a dollar, but it's still pretty important all the same depending on your mindset. Darryl Sutter certainly didn't display any yesterday, and that combined with the sure to follow "so what, it's just a sports ploy" rubber stamp rationalizing by too many members of the media (except Jim Kelley of ESPN, who nails this "issue" pretty solidly) is profoundly disappointing to say the least.
Now, on to the topic of Sutter's claim itself, that the NHL is trying to fix the series against a small market Canadian team and in the favor of an American team. If you read at all through the comments section on the TSN article I linked to above, sadly you'll find that Sutter's theory is pretty widely believed. Of course, and thankfully, not all Calgary and/or Canadian hockey fans agree with such nonsense (like our own "TorontoMakeMeLaughs" from the messageboards), but it's hardly as outlandish a theory as you'd think with at least what seems like half of them taking up the rallying cry. So, for all of those fans (and Darryl Sutters) who think the NHL doesn't want a Canadian team to win the Cup, well, seriously...
WHY?!?
Yeah, I've heard the theory all right, about a thousand times over the last few years, but I've still yet to hear any substantial reasoning behind this theory. Because the NHL is still desperately worried about making inroads with the game to non-hockey corners of America?
Fine, I'll play along. Let's assume then, just for the sake of argument, that the NHL does want an American team to win the Cup. And in their devious and assumably complex plan to artifically award American teams with the Stanley Cup, they hope to pull off this difficult task and influence the outcome of a sporting event from behind their desks by, get this now, suspending 2nd line forward Ville Nieminen for one game.
Wow. I mean, wow. Pretty staggering. How "a." (Neiminen's suspension) somehow correlates to "b." (the NHL fixing the series for an American team) is a mystery of enormous proportions, one that the world's great supercomputers should get to work on right away. Of course, never mind that Neiminen flat out decked Lecavaliver from behind, a move that often brings suspensions. And let's also pay no mind to the fact that Calgary was "allowed" to beat two big market American teams to get here in the first place. The anti-Canada fix is apparently on.
On top of that, let's briefly (and finally) address the idea of the NHL having some sort of anti-Canadian agenda in the first place. The same league that is supposedly ready to go to the brink of annihilation for a salary cap? Who do you think this all is for? Sure, it's for Pittsburgh and Nashville and Atlanta, but you better believe it's also for Calgary and Edmonton and Vancouver and Ottawa, all of whom have cried poverty very loudly in the last five years. The same league that schedules as many Canadian team vs. Canadian team games as it possibly can every single Saturday night for Hockey Night in Canada? And, hey, wasn't Gary Bettman up there in Calgary within the last few years lobbying to either the city or provincial government about giving the Flames some tax breaks? Yeah, I think I remember something like that.
Pro sports is really losing me lately. Maybe you can look past these things and not have them tarnish your enjoyment of the game. Good for you, if that's the case. I wish I could.
- Rocha
eMail this entry!
well yeah, to extend on that theory of the NHL 'fixing' the playoffs for an American team, if this were true, the Rangers would be in the finals right now. Sometimes it looks like Bettman and Sather are the executive version of Abbott & Costello, without the entertaining slapstick. Sather buys another overpriced dog, and Bettman smacks himself in the head in frustration.
Posted by: tiregroove on June 3, 2004 10:58 AMNot to defend Sutter or his ranting but I can understand why he feels his team is being singled out and why he feels the ice has been tilted. The suspension of Ville Niemenen was the straw that broke Sutter's back and he just lost it. We all do occasionally. Perhaps Sutter feels this way:
From TSN -
"Flames fans vented their anger with Fraser and Watson following game four, showering them with debris and beer as they left the ice. The fans were especially incensed with Fraser over three incidents in the game: a five on three power play awarded in the opening minutes, a non-call when Calgary's Craig Conroy was hauled down midway through the third, and a five minute boarding major and game misconduct handed to the Flames' Ville Nieminen late in the third period."
Hasn't almost everyone to a person on these boards ranted about ice tilting, about vendettas by Campbell against the Rangers, about nepotism ala Fraser and his son-in-law. Haven't Hockeybird writers like Leeds and the Rodent devoted countless column inches to the perceived injustices done to the Rangers the last few seasons. (Case in point the ridiculous penalties/suspensions to Simon this season and Lindros the one before.)Why are you so surprised when others around the league feel the same way?
Here's an excerpt from Christopher Dowbiggins 1998 book 'Of Ice and Men' regarding officiating- "Among today's referees, Paul Stewart will give the players leeway. Dan Maroulli has a short fuse. Terry Gregson will call everything in the first period. Kerry Fraser, unlike some, will call a penalty against the home team late in the game. He's the best guy to have on the road, says Chris Chelios. When he's getting booed I think Kerry loves it."
Do Colin Campbell and Von Hellemond honestly expect us to believe that they make the decisions on discipline by themselves? That the evil little troll doesn't call the shots? Please. That's insulting AND disingenuous to me. Why wouldn't it be to Sutter?
As for Sutter voicing his opinions, I say good for him for calling it as he sees it. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his ascertions, he is entitled to say what he thinks. If Bettman tries to censure him for it, he'll make himself look like more of the ass we all already know that he is.
Finally, I feel Calgary got to the final on the goaltending of Kiprusoff. I would hardly characterize it as being "allowed" to get there. I think that's a little unfair, Pete.
Posted by: mhurley on June 3, 2004 11:22 AMMarg, did you even read my article? It doesn't seem like it. You're defending things like his right to say what he feels, which I particularly stated was not the issue. As well, re-read the part again about Calgary being "allowed" to advance to the finals. It was tongue in cheek (hence the quotation marks!), playing on the paranoid ideas of fans that Calgary is not being allowed to win the Finals by the NHL, but were somehow miraculously "allowed" to beat Detroit and San Jose.
Also, it's not an issue of simple referee complaining here. If it was, this wouldn't be such a big issue in the press right now because complaining about the refs is as common as dirt. Sutter is charging, ploy or not, that the league is purposely conspiring against his team and that they have either an anti-Canadian or pro-American bias (or both). That's FAR from simple complaining about bad calls from the ref, and was an incredibly unclassy move. You've missed my points entirely.
Posted by: Rocha on June 3, 2004 02:07 PM
|
|
|
|