Every Friday during the football season a guy
calls his book maker and places a bunch of bets on the weekend’s games. Every
week he loses 60, 70, 80 per cent of the time.
One January Friday he calls his bookie as
usual and asks for the football line.
The bookie laughs. “Football
season is over,” he says. “It’s hockey season now. I’ll give you the hockey line.”
“I don’t bet on hockey,” says the
bettor. “I don’t know anything about it.”
I don’t know much about hockey
either, and my ignorance is intentional. Long ago I was a fan of the sport—and
for a couple of years I covered the University of Michigan’s team for the
dearly departed Ann Arbor News—but kicked the habit. That’s why the news that the
National Hockey League soon will begin another truncated season leaves me cold.
I wouldn’t cross the street to see a hockey game, especially an icy street.
I must confess that my first
stirrings of antipathy for the sport stemmed from pique. As a youth I followed
the Chicago Blackhawks—partly because I thought their Indian-head jerseys were
the coolest ever—and for a few years after my return to Chicago in 1969 after a
decade of wandering I held a piece of a Hawks’ season ticket. Those were the
Bobby Hull-Stan Mikita days, when the Hawks rode high (although never quite
high enough), and I thrilled to their exploits. One of my most-memorable sports
moments came when Hull scored in overtime to beat the New York Rangers in a
Stanley Cup playoff game. The cheer after that one almost tore the roof off old
Chicago Stadium.
The Hawks, however, were owned by
Arthur Wirtz, as greedy a man who ever lived. Every year he raised the price of
everything within his domain, betting that hockey’s allure would keep the
suckers coming. I gulped and reuped until 1972, when Wirtz allowed the great
Hull, one of Chicago’s all-time sports heroes, to jump to the new World Hockey
Association for an annual salary ($100,000) that looked large then but soon
would be regarded as a pittance. I took my ticket business to the basketball
Bulls, where it would stay until 1994. Then Jerry Reinsdorf pulled a Wirtz when
he moved the team into the vast, new United Center and more than doubled the price
of my seats for ones with a worse view. When my fanhood bumps against my cheapness
the latter wins, and I watched on TV from there on.
My dislike of the Hawks deepened
with the years. Arthur Wirtz died in 1983 and bequeathed his empire to his
idiot son, Bill. Arthur was called “The
Baron of the Bottom Line,” in tribute to his rapaciousness. Bill’s nickname was
“The Commodore,” because he liked to tool around on his yacht, thinking up new
ways to shortchange his team’s fans. When Bill’s Blackhawks went south on the
ice in the 1990s, and attendance plunged, I smiled. I also smiled when the team
rebounded under Bill’s son, Rocky, and claimed a rare Stanley Cup in 2010, but
not nearly as much as I would have for a similar triumph by any other Chicago
team.
Still, part of my gripe against hockey is institutional. The NHL is
permanently overexpanded, its reach far exceeding its grasp. True, the six
founding teams that made it almost through the 1960s (representing New York,
Chicago, Boston, Detroit, Montreal and Toronto) were too few, but the 14 that
entered the 1970s seemed to me about right. Alas, franchises have been awarded
to any town with a rink and there are 30 now , far too many to be supported by
the sport’s narrow, frosty-land players’ base. The result is all too obvious on
the ice.
There’s too much NHL for the sports pages,
too; even casual fans should be able to identify the nicknames of all the teams
in our major leagues, but do you know what cities the Blue Jackets, Wild,
Predators, Hurricanes, Lightning and Panthers represent? You get a gold star if
you do. Answers are at the end of this column.
One might think that the fourth
sport in a three-sport environment would strive to make nice with its fans, but
the NHL does the opposite. Its labor relations have been rancorous even by
sports standards, with the latest lockout its third lengthy work stoppage in
the last 17 years. One of those, in 2004-5, cancelled a whole season, for
heaven’s sake. Absence may make the
heart grow fonder in matters romantic, but in sports it breeds only apathy. That
could be especially hurtful for a league that has, maybe, 15,000 real
supporters in most cities in which it operates.
Worst
of all, hockey deserves no respect because it does not respect itself. I refer
to its toleration of fighting. Players fight in other sports, too, but receive
expulsions, suspensions and fines when they do. In hockey it’s a few minutes in
a penalty box and back on the ice.
Hockey is a perfectly good game, and the skills
of its better players are marvelous. College hockey exists nicely without
brawling and every four years the best of the NHL players stage a thrilling
tournament in the Olympics while keeping their hands to themselves. But the
people who run the league don’t trust that, and feel they must appeal to their
most-ignorant fans to succeed. They get what they deserve with their perennial bring-up-the-rear
status.
QUIZ ANSWERS: It’s the Columbus Blue Jackets, Minnesota (St.
Paul) Wild, Nashville Predators, Carolina (Raleigh) Hurricanes, Tampa Bay
Lightning and Florida (Sunrise) Panthers.
3 comments:
If the Hawks' thrilling 2010 Cup run and Patrick Kane's magical overtime Cup-winning goal didn't change your mind about hockey, nothing ever will.
Over 10,00 fans showed up to watch the Sabres practice last night.....practice. Hockey may not be for you, but it certainly seems to appeal to others (like the entire city of Buffalo).
Fred,(a.k.a. Grumpy)
I'm afraid that you've become a very grumpy old man...and probably arrived at that point many years prematurely.
Your word for the day should be tolerance.
I once knew a woman, may she rest in peace, who criticized and belittled everything she didn't understand. Unlike you, her sphere was almost limitless.
For Gawd's sake...Cheer up!
Post a Comment