Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: How The Kings Beat The Coyotes: Lather, Rinse, Repeat

More on Campbell: Et Tu Bob?

A few days have passed since Tyler Dellow at mc79hockey.com posted the contents of emails between NHL Senior Vice President Colin Campbell and then-Director of NHL Officials Stephen Walkom that he came across while perusing now-public records from a court case brought about by the firing of referee Dean Warren. In that time, we've seen the immediate knee-jerk reaction, the counter-reaction, and finally the analysis on both from each side.

So what's come out of all of this?

The league has circled the wagons again to protect a member of the untouchable Old Boys' Club.  Campbell and Daly have each weighed in with Daly coming to Campbell's defense, saying that the suggestion that Colin Campbell performs his duty with anything less than 100% integrity is factually wrong.  Campbell himself called it "Much ado about nothing", blowing off the entirety of the controversy by stating, in his relationship with Walkom, the two knew about which things Campbell was merely venting and which things Campbell was outright directing

By-and-large, early fan reaction was that Colin Campbell should absolutely be fired for the tone of the emails and for the implication that he lets personal feelings get in the way of his job, then transitioning to the broader statement that this is just another in a long line of things for which Campbell should be fired.  While the response from the league is not surprising, it's somewhat disheartening to those who believe that Campbell's removal would be a positive step forward for the league in dealing with two incredibly contentious issues: refereeing standards and supplemental discipline practices.  Let's face it, before the new email scandal broke, NHL fans already had at best wavering trust in the league's ability to correctly enforce their own rules, both on and off the ice.

But then, in steps TSN's Bob McKenzie as a writer for whom I have a tremendous amount of respect.  McKenzie is one of the few that are in deep enough with the league to get the trusted kind of insider info without being a self-interested independent media huckster.  Unfortunately, what Bob has to say is not promising.

Join us after the jump for more.

Star-divide

First off, head on over to TSN.CA to read the full article. McKenzie starts us off talking about how the cries to remove Campbell are nothing new, but then he hits us with this brick:

The truth is there is this incredibly huge, and growing by leaps and bounds every day, disconnect between how hockey fans and media view crime and punishment in the NHL and how the league and those who comprise it -- the 30 owners, the 30 GMs, the 30 head coaches, the 700-plus players who play the game, the NHL head office executives led by commissioner Gary Bettman and, finally, the NHL Players Association -- deal with it.

That one hurts.  We have to "deal with it" when the league goes too lightly on the dangerous hits.  McKenzie, like he always does, makes some excellent points in the piece about how nobody on the inside of the game (as opposed to we fans, the outsiders) want the league to lean more heavily on the whipping stick when it comes to discipline.  It costs the players money they don't want to lose, the coaches lineup headaches with which they don't want to deal, the GMs roster problems about which they don't want to think, and the owners dollars which they're throwing down the drain on a salary when there's no return.  Of course, the last statement is the most frightening because not only does it make a lot of sense, but it also makes it an easy conclusion that the owners don't want all players treated equally by the league, which is already an issue about which we, the outsiders, worry.

McKenzie moves on to explain that Campbell is so deeply entrenched with the Old Boys' Club because his integrity in the room is not a question; that the "culture" of their club knows that it's ok to send these kinds of emails within the circle, because everybody knows that at the end of the day, Campbell will make a suspension call based on what he thinks is for the good of the game and not because of personal like or dislike for any particular team, player, or GM.   While Campbell's dubious record with suspension may mean the reality of the situation is not in line with what the Old Boys' Club thinks, McKenzie's not wrong because he's speaking to the culture and not the practice.

What hurts here is Bob's defeatist tone to the whole article.  Take this:

Face it, Colin Campbell could be deep-sixed tomorrow in his job as league disciplinarian, but do you really think anything would change? Fans and media could prance about and sing, 'Ding Dong, the witch is dead,' but the next guy would come in and it would be, meet the new boss, same as the old boss. No one in fandom or the media world liked the job Brian Burke was doing when he left the dean of discipline's office and no one likes the job Campbell is doing now. Do you honestly think the next guy who takes the chair is going to turn things upside down?

Or this:

The NHL is, at its very core, tribal and, at times, savage. While we in the media and the fans most certainly play a part in its theatre, we aren't full-fledged members of the tribe and never will be, nor do many necessarily aspire to be. That said, we still all push our collective noses up against the glass, bang our fists and demand to be heard on issues we think matter and on very rare occasions it sometimes occurs. But on this overall issue of crime and punishment in the NHL, the league's equivalent of tribal council if you will, there's a way the NHL has always done business and a way how they apparently intend to continue doing business and we can all bray as loudly and as long as we like, but we saw this week with 'Colie-mail' how quickly the wagons get circled.
  
It's not about one man, it never has been. It's about The Game, those who run it, those who play it and how they govern it. They do, we (media and fans) don't. That's just the way it is.

So that's it.  They run the league and we don't.  The fans should maybe stop complaining because we're the outsiders who are lucky enough to pay the salaries of these guys, the true stewards of the integrity of hockey.  From the tone here, we're left to accept that the NHL is run the way it is or we're welcome to find another favorite pastime. 

I say hell no.

This sport belongs to everybody.  Bob doesn't outright say that we should all just learn to accept this crap, but he damn well sure implies it with the tone.  The minute the fans stop railing against the things they find unfair and quietly accept everything as gospel from the league is the minute that it falls apart.  Money is a powerful motivator and if most of the people in power can manipulate the purity of the sport to squeeze the maximum amount of cash out of it, they absolutely will. While there's never going to be a consensus about pretty much anything from the fans, the discussion is what keeps hockey alive as a sport instead of something in the relatively new category of "sports entertainment."  To stop complaining and accept league rule is to confirm to those running things that what they do in these situations is acceptable and that, good sirs, is indeed the biggest injustice that could come from this.

However, McKenzie is right about how it's not about one man and it never will be.  Personally, I buy the stuff about Colin Campbell being a guy that the Old Boys can trust to have in their club.  Perhaps Campbell doesn't need to be fired because, after all, you'd only be removing one man.  Instead, how about we talk pulling the job out from under him?  There's a lot of talk out there among fans that perhaps it's time to take a look at why league discipline is limited to one man's integrity or biases.  Campbell can keep his position, but he should lose his job as the one and only person who gets to decide on the fate of players in regards to supplemental discipline. 

If that job is handled by one man who is looking out for the interests of the league and, as I said above, the league's primary interest is making money, then how can we, the outsiders trust that these decisions are made in good faith?  Perhaps the importance of treating each NHL player as equal is too difficult a job for a man who has to hear constantly from GMs about how their players are the most equal guys in the whole league.  I personally would propose moving the responsibility of supplemental discipline to a three-person committee made up of a league representative, an NHLPA representative, and an NHLOA representative.  You wouldn't be removing bias from the situation here, you would just hope that the biases for the three main organizations responsible for the sanctity of our game would help balance out. 

Of course, when you tie this into the consideration that Campbell is also in charge of dealing with the Director of Officiating and look at the inconsistency in the way the game is called, perhaps Campbell's job with the Old Boys should be completely re-evaluated.  I have no doubt that he knows the culture and he knows the game inside-and-out, but when he's sat at the helm of the two biggest problems most fans have with the sport, it's time to assess what kind of value his experience truly brings.  If the league does end up taking the sane advice to make supplemental discipline the responsibility of a balanced committee, this would be the second large change they've had to make in response to things that Colin Campbell could not get right in the first place (the first being the introduction of Rule 48 about blind side headshots, of course).  Do his well-rubbed elbows more than make up for the amount of people he's rubbed the wrong way?

If Bob really believes that removing Campbell won't change the way the SVP dishes out punishment, then maybe it's time for us as fans to challenge the system, not the individual.

Comment 20 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Campbell

The whole story means nothing but BS. It happened years ago and is water under bridge. Campbell is not going anywhere, it’s just BS, someone is trying to get his reputation and do a number on him. Probably members of the suspended sore loser club. Hey in his job shit happens, deal with it.

by Jim P on Nov 17, 2010 1:59 PM CST reply actions  

Disagree

In Campbell’s job, shit happens, but he sucks at his job. He doesn’t have a reputation with the fans. Nobody outside of the inner-circle of hockey guys that McKenzie mentions think he’s good for the game.

by J.J. from Kansas on Nov 17, 2010 2:02 PM CST up reply actions  

Water under the bridge?

Maybe involving these specific players and the incidents referenced in the emails. But I’ll bet you that there are a ton of emails like this, which leads me to believe that he’s allowing his personal biases and opinions to influence the way that he does his job, which should not happen here. He needs to be an impartial judge when it comes to punishment, taking into such factors as nature of the offense, history of the offender, extent of injury to the victim, and overall impact. If he feels that Marc Savard is a “fake artist” and that affected any decisions he made that Savard was involved in, then it destroys his credibility as an arbiter in NHL HQ.

Like to keep your communication short and to the point? Follow me on Twitter

by Amerinadian on Nov 17, 2010 2:27 PM CST up reply actions  

I can't understand the defense of the Cooke no-suspension

Perhaps the most significant inference from the ‘Colie-mail’ escapade, and the one everyone is latching onto, was that Boston’s Marc Savard may not have gotten justice when he was knocked out with a shoulder to the head check by Pittsburgh’s Matt Cooke last season. It was Savard, of course, who [sic] Campbell called in his deciphered emails a “little fake artist” and a whiner, leading many fans and media to believe that egregious bias led to Cooke walking free when he should have been suspended for life, if not longer. But those involved in the game are confident that the bias card was never an issue because whatever disparaging remarks Campbell made about Savard, there isn’t anyone in the game who can’t imagine Campbell thinks even less of Cooke and the way he plays the game.

Nonsensical as that sentence is, if I were to take it literally as written, I get, “Those involved in the game know that bias against Savard was never an issue because no one would imagine that Campbell thinks less of Cooke [to give him a suspension].”

Assuming I’m correct in that interpretation (an assumption which is HIGHLY questionable), Bob basically means that because Cooke played the game hard (and dirty) with a shoulder check (to the head), he gets off scott-free; meanwhile, Savard, known as a “‘little fake artist’ and whiner,” deserves what he got. So that would mean that biases ultimately DID play a role (according to McKenzie’s poor writing) in Campbell’s lack of discipline for Cooke.

I also take much issue with the idea that Bob puts out: Everyone—NHL players, GMs, coaches, etc.—has an interest in discipline because of how it could affect players on NHL teams. Accordingly, punishment doled out tries not to cause so much trouble because “that’s the way the vast majority of people who comprise the NHL community want it.” But doesn’t this conclusion exactly match (one of) the fans’ complaints about how such punishments DON’T serve as a deterrent against future transgressions?

by uvgt2bkdnme on Nov 17, 2010 2:37 PM CST reply actions  

From what I gathered of that part

I think he was meaning to say that if was bias that affected that decision, it should be Campbell’s bias against Cooke, who he doesn’t like that would outweigh his smaller bias against Savard and would have led to a suspension.

I agree that the problem of suspending to deter future issues is something that the league has not done well. It’s one of many places where Campbell has failed to do his job effectively.

by J.J. from Kansas on Nov 17, 2010 2:44 PM CST up reply actions  

Thank you

I share your sentiments about MacKenzie’s article. I am disappointed that TSN didn’t step up and pursue this story with hard questions and use their clout to demand answers. There’s plenty of opinion floating around on the internet, which is good, but this is a case where the professional media has to do some serious fact-finding, not just interpret the spin being offered by the league.

by Game 6 on Nov 17, 2010 3:03 PM CST reply actions  

Seems to be a lot...

…of confusion about what Bob is saying in this article.

Assuming I’m correct in that interpretation (an assumption which is HIGHLY questionable), Bob basically means that because Cooke played the game hard (and dirty) with a shoulder check (to the head), he gets off scott-free; meanwhile, Savard, known as a "‘little fake artist’ and whiner," deserves what he got. So that would mean that biases ultimately DID play a role (according to McKenzie’s poor writing) in Campbell’s lack of discipline for Cooke.

Actually, what Bob is saying here is that whatever bias Campbell may (or may not) have against Savard, his bias against Cookie is likely worse, because Cooke (Avery, Tootoo, etc.) are gutless players, in the old school sense. Thus Campbell would likely want to stick it to Cooke more so than Savard, if he were indeed biased.

The other area where there seems to be misunderstanding is of the first quotation from the article…

That one hurts. We have to “deal with it” when the league goes too lightly on the dangerous hits.

McKenzie isn’t saying here “Hey fans, deal with it.” I’ll try and parse it out here:
“The truth is there is this incredibly huge…disconnect between how hockey fans and media view crime and punishment in the NHL and how the league and those who comprise it… deal with (crime and punishment in the NHL).”

I don’t think anyone would disagree with that assessment, and I think Bob does a nice job of drawing out that disconnect (though perhaps his writing is inelegant). How the business side of the NHL and its constituent parts might react to violations and subsequent suspensions is a different issue than the visceral reactions fans have to seeing one of “their guys” have one of these questionable hits happen to them.

Consider the following…

There was much hue and cry last year from fans when Kronwall was taken out by a dirty play from Laraque (which garnered a lengthy, by NHL standards, suspension (5 games), in part because of Laraque’s “past history”). If the Detroit brass raise a stink about the length of the suspension, what happens when a Detroit player throws a borderline suspendable hit? What happens when Kronwall does something like the Havlat hit in the 2008 playoffs? This is the crux of Bob’s argument. That teams and players know that at some point the skate will be on the other foot, as it were. If you don’t want to lose Kronwall for 10, 20, 30 games, then you can’t call for Cooke, Laraque, etc. to be suspended for 10, 20, 30 games.

(And NO, I’m not saying Kronner is equivalent to those guys. Simply using him as an example because among Detroit players, he and Holmer seem to be the most often pointed out by opposing team’s fans (and whiny little Teemu Selanne) as dirty or dangerous players.)

As fans we have the luxury of seeing simply what happens on the ice in a vacuum. Players, coaches, teams, and the NHL don’t have that luxury. This is McKenzie’s broad point, and I think it’s an important one.

by LeftWingLocked on Nov 17, 2010 3:03 PM CST reply actions  

You're right about the "deal with it" line - I had misread that.

McKenzie’s broader point to the entire article still seems like a “there’s nothing you can do about it because that’s the way it is” argument and that’s what I reject.

I think he did a good job explaining that nobody among the people “in the business” want more suspensions unless they’re the ones who recently were wronged, but this is another part of the issue. While I suggested a member of the NHL, NHLPA, and NHLOA to sit on the committee for suspension, I would hope that all three combined would not look at it in the context you laid out. I had no rooting interest between either Philadelphia or Florida last season, but I still think Richards’ blind-side hit on Booth was awful and something I don’t want in hockey.

I want the people making the decisions about whether a player should be suspended to make those in the same vacuum the fans have (minus the team-by-team bias, of course) because I think the concept of “what if it happens to me?” is much more fair when you take out the monetary aspects.

This would be much easier to do from a Red Wings fan perspective if we had more examples of dirty plays, since, as you had to point out, Kronwall’s history does not at all match Cooke’s

I also think McKenzie grossly exaggerated when he talked about the shrill people screaming about turning 2 or 3-game suspensions into 10 or 15. I don’t think there are as many out there as there are people who just want the league’s suspension policy to make sense day in and day out. Having just gotten through election season, I was a little dismayed that he chose to go the route of painting one side in the light of being full of people who over-react to everything.

by J.J. from Kansas on Nov 17, 2010 3:16 PM CST up reply actions  

I agree...

…in principle, but pragmatically, it’s not how the NHL operates. They cannot operate in the same vacuum we’d like them to, because the bottom line is always going to be an overriding factor, and it will ultimately backlash.

There are top-tier players who play on the edge of (and sometimes over) that line between hard and dirty play (Ovechkin, Pronger and Richards immediately come to mind). Now imagine you have season tickets to Caps games to see Ovechkin. Or you get tickets when Philly comes to town so you can see Richards and Pronger match up against your team. Are you happy, as a fan of the game, that the best possible line-up isn’t on the ice because of a suspension?

I wouldn’t be. Hell, I’d be bummed if I were going to the game tonight because Oshie and Perron are out! If your stars aren’t in the line-up, what is the impact on the bottom line? How can you get the casual fans (not the hard core fans) through the gate when big name guys are in the pressbox?

NOW. You can argue that this is a myopic approach by the NHL, because increasingly you’re losing top tier players to injuries from these hits. I would hope that this argument would gain traction in these discussions, because it’s the same reasoning behind NOT suspending players. If you want the best possible line-ups on the ice, you have to make sure they’re protected from dangerous plays with high injury probability.

I do agree with your points, it just seems that you want to have an ideal situation. Unfortunately, it may not be tractable.

by LeftWingLocked on Nov 17, 2010 3:35 PM CST up reply actions  

I don't get it...

…are you saying that the erratic disciplinary system that the NHL operates should be acceptable to fans of the game because it is necessary to sustain the business of the NHL? If so, I think we have all reluctantly swallowed that one, and that’s not what’s at issue. What is at issue is that there seems to be clear evidence of bias and nepotism at the highest levels that (seemingly) has nothing to do with the business of the NHL (Savard is more of a star than Campbell or Cooke). The “running a business is hard” defense does not hold water.

by Game 6 on Nov 17, 2010 3:49 PM CST up reply actions  

I said nothing about the erratic disciplinary system in the NHL. That’s not the issue at hand in my post. If it were, I’ve been staunch in stating that the only consistent thing in the NHL is the inconsistency in officiating.

So what is your clear evidence? A chain of emails that yielded what SPECIFIC disciplinary actions? Where is your hard evidence that Campbell and the NHL brass are colluding against specific players and for others?

Everyone wants to single out the Cooke hit on Savard last season that didn’t yield a suspension, but there were MULTIPLE similar hits around that time that also didn’t yield suspensions.

So show your work. What specific examples of bias and nepotism are there against Campbell? Show me where hits on his kid earned suspensions and hits his kid threw didn’t. Frankly, a chain of venting emails is hardly damning evidence. It’s circumstantial at best.

As for your last statement. Come on. You’re being intellectually dishonest. The argument was not that running a business is hard. It’s that running a business is RUNNING A BUSINESS! The goal is to make money and do you disagree it would be harder to do that if marquee players are sitting in the press box under suspension?

by LeftWingLocked on Nov 17, 2010 4:16 PM CST up reply actions  

Sorry if I didn’t understand your point; I thought you were arguing that the disciplinary system in the NHL — which is inconsistent — should be acceptable because of the business motives behind it.

As for the specific disciplinary action, I believe it was against the referee that made the calls in question — who was fired — thus the reason these emails were entered as evidence and became public.

And as the Cooke hit on Savard, without Campbell’s email comments about Savard, that specific non-call would not be the issue it is today, would it?

And for my last comment, if you’d like, we can easily substitute your phrase that running a business is running a business, but that is still no defense for the bias expressed by Campbell in his emails.

However, I will concede that this may be about “running a business.” Perhaps it is about firing a ref for reasons other than his on ice performance; perhaps it more about NHL labor relations with the referees. That seems to have been implied in one of the few articles that have come out on this topic, but I really don’t know. That is why I would like to see more investigative reporting on this subject. We need more facts, not more spin.

by Game 6 on Nov 17, 2010 5:00 PM CST up reply actions  

Ahhhh, sorry...

…I was thinking more about dangerous/illegal hits, and less about the firing of the official. I honestly don’t know enough about that situation to comment intelligently. What little I have read, however, has suggested that he was a bad official. So in that sense, sure, you’re right. But I was more thinking about Campbell’s role as league disciplinarian (of players, specifically), and less in regard to his involvement with officials…that’s a whole ‘nother can of worms. Ultimately, yes, you’re right. Even if he WAS a bad official, that’s no excuse for Campbell’s emails.

There should be more investigation into it. There certainly is the appearance of impropriety.

by LeftWingLocked on Nov 17, 2010 5:08 PM CST up reply actions  

I guess that is the can of worms. While I have not seen the evidence that the official was a bad ref (geez, measured by who’s standard?), I have seen evidence of Campbell’s bias against a specific player — in an incident where his son was involved to boot. How that bias has manifested itself with the context of game — in disciplinary rulings, etc. — remains to be seen, but it certainly raises doubts about his integrity and the judgment of those who employ him.

by Game 6 on Nov 17, 2010 6:00 PM CST up reply actions  

NOW. You can argue that this is a myopic approach by the NHL, because increasingly you’re losing top tier players to injuries from these hits. I would hope that this argument would gain traction in these discussions, because it’s the same reasoning behind NOT suspending players. If you want the best possible line-ups on the ice, you have to make sure they’re protected from dangerous plays with high injury probability.

This is my favorite counterpoint to that argument.

Yeah, I agree that I am something of a hockey communist, if that’s such a bad thing. I understand that it’s a business and a moneymaking venture, but I tend to value fair over profitable when it comes to the stewardship of the game. I think fans who would feel robbed of value because their favorite player was suspended should ultimately be able to take that suspension issue up with their favorite player with the concept of “quit getting yourself suspended you big lug, because I want to pay money to watch you play”.

Unfortunately, with a system in place that calls into question the integrity of the decision to suspend, the fans have the easy way out by saying “here’s exhibit A, B, C, D, E, and F of similar events that didn’t get suspended, so my favorite guy should not have either”.

I mean, even with a single judge of immeasurable integrity and positive reputation or a committe that could be described the same way, you’re going to have a portion of sports fans who are going to loudly disagree with their decisions because the very nature of being a fan is foregoing rational thought in favor of wildly rooting on your favorites; but I at least want a better system where the people screaming about how wrong a decision was are the vast minority to the people who can logically claim that the choice was fair.

I do absolutely want an ideal system and I want the league moving towards it. In the meantime, I at least want a system closer to ideal than what we currently have.

At any rate, Thanks for the discussion on this.

by J.J. from Kansas on Nov 17, 2010 3:50 PM CST up reply actions  

I tend to value fair over profitable when it comes to the stewardship of the game

This is an interesting point. I should point out that I think Campbell should’ve lost his job long ago because of the consistent inconsistency in officiating both on and off the ice. That said, I believe that he, like you, is primarily interested in the stewardship of the game. His approach to it is very different, and that is what can be galling. He’s interested in maintaining a vision of the game that is less modern and more of a throwback. He wants more Gordie Howe hockey and less Jaromir Jagr hockey (I’m looking at YOU, Kovalchuk). Here it boils down to how one perceives the game and what direction one wishes it to move in the future. I think Campbell is like Don Cherry, and his ideal game is that of the past. Players like Howe, Neely, etc. Maybe my ideal game is the European style. Big, fast ice dominated by skilled players like Datsyuk.

Which perception of the game is right? The greater discussion here, really, is about the evolution of the game. It’s hard for me to say that Campbell and Bettman’s vision of the game is better or worse than anyone else. It just so happens that they have greater ability to impose their vision on the game than you or I.

by LeftWingLocked on Nov 17, 2010 4:23 PM CST reply actions  

If what you're saying is true

about Campbell actually having the integrity to worry about the state of hockey instead of the bottom line of the league, then yes, it boils down to the difference in the hockey opinions.

As the Russian Five helped make me the hockey fan I am today, it’s definitely no secret which way I lean.

Which perception of the game is right? The greater discussion here, really, is about the evolution of the game. It’s hard for me to say that Campbell and Bettman’s vision of the game is better or worse than anyone else. It just so happens that they have greater ability to impose their vision on the game than you or I.

If this is the issue (and I think it probably is a noticeable part of the issue), then I would simply like more of the “new” style guys to get in with the Old Boys’ Club, to at least gives fans like us a voice.

by J.J. from Kansas on Nov 17, 2010 4:33 PM CST up reply actions  

If what you’re saying is true about Campbell actually having the integrity to worry about the state of hockey…

I don’t know if I’d go that far. Certainly don’t know that I’d use “Campbell” and “Integrity” in the same sentence. I do think that he believes he has a role in stewardship of the game. His idea of stewardship, though, is regressive, in part because it DOES influence the bottom line of the league.

Like it or not, there are STILL a lot of casual hockey fans that go to games for fights and huge (maybe dirty, maybe illegal) hits. Indeed, they may be a much larger contingent than maybe folks who go to games to see Lidstrom’s unparalleled positional play, or Datsyuk’s back-checking, or Howard’s rebound control, or Ericsson’s…uh…whatever it is that he does back there. By keeping some degree of violence in the game assures a certain number of asses in seats and dollars in the bank.

My point in all this rambling is that this is a VERY complex issue with a lot of gray areas, and while I disagree with just about everything Campbell does, I do think he sees what he is doing as stewardship of the game.

by LeftWingLocked on Nov 17, 2010 4:45 PM CST up reply actions  

Wow..

All this is starting to look like the same bs politics that go on in Washington and abroad. Key word there being “politics” and unless we’re there when it’s happening, unfortunately that’s pretty much all it will ever be to us. Their is no doubt that anyone who’s been following the league for awhile, knows that their are certain “injustices” that happen often. Some more than others and especially if you’re a Wings fan, haha.

Just like in Washington, the NHL and other sports I’m sure… their will always be things going on that the public has no clue about, good and bad. The question is and where the main problem comes in.. when and how does it effect the game itself? If your a Wings fan… it comes in during 20+ seconds with too many men on the ice during the finals. Or last night with the blind side hit on Kronwall. Just small parts of a bigger problem, of course.

I can see both sides.. the “what difference is anything going to make?” and “the we need to do something now” sides. Does everything change with the President or do bad habits become worse habits. Either way, something needs to be done before something bad/worse happens.. that is most important. Like your parents used to say… “it’s all fun and games, until someone loses an eye”

STAND TALL, FLY STRAIGHT, USA ALL THE WAY!

by DetroitALLtheWay09 on Nov 18, 2010 3:13 PM CST reply actions  

Bob McKenzie

does realize that there are major professional sports where the Commissioner isn’t booed mercilessly in every stadium he appears in, right?

Tell me this isn’t a relevant point when discussing the current leadership’s stewardship of the NHL.

by Big Z in Orlando on Nov 22, 2010 4:52 PM CST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about the Detroit Red Wings.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Reasons why the 2011-12 Detroit Red Wings season was great

Recent FanPosts

De_small
Should we Re-sign Abby? Am I the only one?
Small
Parise vs Suter
Small
What's next on Defense?
Small
More Thoughts on What Went Wrong
Small
Corey Perry? Strange coincidence
Small
Anyone else getting scared of the worst-case-scenario?
Epic_sax_guy_plz_by_epicsaxguyplz-d31pmuj_small
Great Moments in St. Louis Sports History
Small
Looking beyond next year...
Epic_sax_guy_plz_by_epicsaxguyplz-d31pmuj_small
Other Recent Personal Bests

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


The Gentlemen

Images_small J.J. from Kansas

Simpsonsabbey_small Amerinadian

Dsc07546_small JeffHancock41

Editor

Jabdelkadercamp08_small stripe

Author

Small Robocop

Photochop Guru

Whiteknight_small Josh Howard