Journalist Blasts LA, Rest of U.S.

[Joe]

I found this on another forum.

I found a few parts pretty funny, I thought the guy pretty much owned the population of California and the rest of the US.

From the Los Angeles Times
JOEL STEIN
You don't deserve the Ducks
The Stanley Cup champions belong in a city (and a country) that isn't pro-hockey illiterate.
Joel Stein

June 8, 2007

SERIOUSLY, NOT even now? You can't even summon the decency to jump on the Ducks bandwagon now? Or whatever lame version of a bandwagon it is when, instead of a parade for winning the Stanley Cup, the celebration consists of hanging out in the Honda Center parking lot at 6:30 on Saturday and waiting for free Wienerschnitzel hot dogs, Pepsi and Aramark barbecue potato chips. That's not a celebration. That's Day 3 for Katrina victims.

Hollywood Boulevard should be covered in ice. Emilio Estevez should be permitted to make another movie. Small children in little No. 25 sweaters should be hitting each other with sticks. You should be getting that joke.

Hours after the Ducks became California's first Stanley Cup winners, when the L.A. Times briefly filled its website with a huge, unavoidable banner headline, the article was only the No. 2 most-viewed story, after one about Caltrans shutting down part of California 138 for roadwork. Jiggy stopped an Antoine Vermette penalty shot, and yet you're more surprised by traffic in Los Angeles? I can't believe the game wasn't preempted for breaking news of a Lindsay Lohan speeding violation. By Thursday, the Ducks were off the most-viewed list entirely. Do they have to become the Los Angeles Ducks of Anaheim to get your attention?

L.A., I hate your brainless refusal to give hockey a chance, despite all it's given you. At the beginning of the season, when the Ducks were already favorites to win, The Times planned to save money by not sending reporters to cover hockey "away" games. I would find this even more infuriating if The Times weren't also considering saving money by not sending reporters to the office.

Sure, my love of hockey — which admittedly started when I was a wimpy, nerdy kid who didn't relate to any sports because I couldn't play them and longed to seem different — is a little pathological. So is wasting space in a paper writing about hockey. In fact, because Op-Ed columns and hockey are both dying mediums, I'd probably be more effective making a daguerreotype about bocce.

And it's not just L.A. The whole country is bafflingly uninterested in hockey. Only nine of the cities that have NHL teams bothered sending reporters to Anaheim for the finals; the New York Times only sent someone to Game 1. News conferences were held over the phone. Monday night's game was tied for the lowest-rated TV show in the history of NBC, the network that brought us "Manimal." Earlier playoff rounds were on a channel called Versus, which is so irrelevant it isn't even owned by ESPN. An overtime playoff game on NBC was ditched in favor of a Preakness pre-race show — which was just live coverage of a petting zoo. Hockey is the only thing Jerry Bruckheimer is involved in that America doesn't watch.

I've tried explaining the beauty of the sport to too many people, too many times. These are normal-size guys playing a contact sport while also ice skating, spinning beautiful ballet while beating the rubbish out of each other. Imagine how awesome "The Nutcracker" would be if they actually did what the title promised.

But for the same reasons Americans can't follow soccer, you shun hockey. You can't comprehend that far more exciting than scoring is the possibility of scoring. It's the tension of hope extended, uninterrupted by huddles and time-outs. But apparently appreciating the moments in between is too much to ask of you. Is it surprising that our first response to a situation is to go to war given that we prefer sports where pituitary cases pile up scores like 110-109? If LeBron James gets any better, Iran is in serious trouble.

Sure, hockey is a little white, but you know what? Those are my people. Actually my people are the Jews, but I'm not going to fly to Boca for the national mah-jongg championships. I like country music, hockey, Tolkien, cycling, crisp white wines and the movie "Ordinary People." Seriously, I need hockey to make me seem less gay.

The Ducks are an amazing team. Vicious checking that somehow never clogs the game. Teemu Selanne's smiling misdirection with the puck in front of the net. The Niedermayer brothers finally on the same side of the ice. If you can't show that you deserve this team next year — by, say, watching them — I hope Canadian teams win the cup for the next 20 years. And I hope Canada does something that will actually bother you, like releasing more Celine Dion albums.

And don't make me yell at you again when the Tour de France starts next month. This is Santa Rosa resident Levi Leipheimer's big year.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jstein@latimescolumnists.com

[bruins72]

That's a pretty funny article. It's got some harsh but good points to it. Honestly, I think we'd have more fan interest in the traditional (yes, that means the US too!) markets if we didn't have all the talent spread out to fill the teams in these warm weather markets where the fans could care less. Let these areas have AHL teams! It's a competitive hockey league that puts on a good show for it's fans. That's something for the hockey fans in these markets to sink their teeth into and they can still watch the NHL on TV. With less teams in the league the real talent will be more concentrated, making for a much better brand of hockey in the NHL.

[B. Stinson]

I'm not really sure what to say about our friend Joel's so-called article. To me, it sounded more like a drunken, anti-American, hockey-illiterate, driveling rant.

But then again, I shouldn't really expect anything different from someone whose explanation of hockey is: "These are normal-size guys playing a contact sport while also ice skating, spinning beautiful ballet while beating the rubbish out of each other." Yeah!... he's an expert on the subject.

[bruins72]

Hey, for California... that's as good as we can ask for!

[Minstrel]

I'm not really sure what to say about our friend Joel's so-called article. To me, it sounded more like a drunken, anti-American, hockey-illiterate, driveling rant.

Well it's good to hear from Tom (eCa) again

[titan124]

This article hit the nail on the head: People won't give hockey a chance. They shun it for no real reason, and when convinced to try watching it, they do it with an attitude like it's just a big joke. The only time people seem interested is when they are invited to a game, and still some think it's ok to act like total jerks when someone gave them a gift of a ticket to the best league of the second most widely played sport in the world.

However, a reason that many people don't watch hockey is because they can't see the puck. At times, I can't see the puck, but I have been watching long enough to know who has the puck simply by body movements (as I'm sure most hockey fans can). NBC and Versus need to bring back the puck trail so people can follow the puck better. I know, the Canadians bitched and moaned about it for god knows why, but I happened to like it a lot. Think of this: Every time someone takes a hard slap shot, you can't see the puck. Sometimes, just a normal shot makes it difficult. People have no clue about the sense of speed because they can't see the puck going into the net, or the passes, or anything really. Seeing a puck with a huge yellow streak will let people keep track of the puck and sense the speed of it. We (American hockey fans) need to stop caring what the canadian media says. Their country loves the sport, and that's awesome, but ours doesn't so its unfair to complain about the lack of support of hockey in america while criticizing any suggestion that makes hockey coverage different than theirs.

Anways, this is clearly a rant, so I'll leave it at that.

[batdad]

Nooooooo...not the fox trax puck....No........... those words should be censored like M******. NOOOOOOOOOOO

Finding the puck just takes patience for people. Just like being able to tell when someone is offside in soccer takes patience, and time to learn....just like being able to tell watching a baseball game what kind of a pitch was thrown, and seing a balk move, and being able to see the baseball in the clouds takes time...

Just like it takes a ton of patience to watch American football...just like it takes a ton of patience to watch the last 5 minutes of any basketball game. Patience, not trails......Watch and learn, like you seem to have done.

The problem is people have no interest in learning...they see one game, say "I can't see the puck" and quit watching...oh well...bye bye. Those people will never become hockey fans, no matter what is done...trails, trax, lightning bolts, big nets, a 2 foot glowing orange puck, girls with no clothes playing...it does not matter. Forget about them. That is what the Fox trax does not work. Eww.. hate it.

I don't think we will see a yellow trail on a baseball, or a red trail on a soccer ball in live showings on TV...|

For the record...I hate the yellow 1st down line in the NFL.

[B. Stinson]

I see no reason for a puck streak. It's not hard to follow the puck if you understand what's going on in the game, like batdad said. Yes, that'll be hard for new fans to do, but they have to learn, just like anything else. Nothing can be picked up and understood with the first look. In fact, I think an aid would be damaging... because then people would simply rely on the aid to tell them what's going on, and they'd have no need to learn the concepts. It's when they're forced to know it for themselves that they'll learn it the best.

A good example: When I got into soccer a year ago, I had no idea what offsides was. However, I kept watching games, and kept playing FM - and now I can usually pick out an offsides for myself. Since there were no aids, I had to learn it or else I'd be sitting here right now still not really knowing what offsides is.

[Snowmon]

The two biggest things I see for helping people to follow the game "visually" down here, is getting camera men who one; know HOW to follow the play, two; camera men who know how to cut the ice glare on their cameras and three; producers behind the scenes that know the proper camera to cut to at the correct time..... OK three things.

Unfortunately, the red puck flare doesn't help when a winger is firing a shot from the offensive blueline and the camera is still on the guy who fell on his butt in his own end.

From a pure visual aspect, if we could get as many CBC feeds of games down here as possible, it would be a lot easier for people to see what is going on. As others have mentioned patience and learning the game is the best way to do it, but a little better visual presentation of the game would help.

[Shadd666]

As others have mentioned patience and learning the game is the best way to do it, but a little better visual presentation of the game would help.

I think you get the whole point here

Everyone has some efforts to make, both TVs and watchers. And the more the TVs will make efforts (cameramen, producers, etc), the more you'll find people who'll be patient enough to learn the game properly and patiently. At least, i think so...

[B. Stinson]

I wonder if it would help to have three primary cameras: one at each end of the rink like in video games, and one at the "50 yard line." The proper end camera would be used when a team is clearly on the offensive, and the "50 yard line" camera would be for prolonged/significant neutral zone play.

This way, no camera would have to pan(thus complicating the ability to follow the puck) since it would only be covering a small portion of the ice. The neutral zone cam would concentrate between the blue lines, while the end zone cams would concentrate between the side boards of each offensive zone. ...I would imagine that's why video games always use these end views - they cover the whole width of the ice without having to move and frustrate the one playing.

[batdad]

The end zone camera that is used on power plays is hell, except when the power play team is moving the puck around in the o-zone. It is great for pp but not sure how good it would be the reast of the time.
The first few times I saw it...it was a heck of an adjustment. But it really let you see what the pp and pk were trying to do.

[titan124]

The end zone camera that is used on power plays is hell, except when the power play team is moving the puck around in the o-zone. It is great for pp but not sure how good it would be the reast of the time.
The first few times I saw it...it was a heck of an adjustment. But it really let you see what the pp and pk were trying to do.

I've loved it since the first time I saw it. It really brings a sense of excitement to the game. You can see where people are aiming, etc, not to mention that it makes goals seem so much closer. I love the way that it lets you see where the players are aiming as opposed to just seeing a shot on net, and, like you said, how the PP is setting up. That said, I hate that camera when my team is on the PK for the same exact reasons as why I like it on the PP.

[B. Stinson]

I've only seen it used a few times, but I found that it showed the action and plays a lot better than the side view... especially since it was looking right into the action rather than viewing it from one side, and behind the attacking players.

[batdad]

Hells yeah...for pp/pk it is awesome. I have rarely seen it used at Even strength. Likely because noone ever gets set up for very long in an offensive end, and play is more scrambly...Camera would jerk around a bit too much maybe

[BlindEarth80]

I think the NHL really lost its reputation with the rapid expansion and relocation of the '90s. When a league adds 9 teams and moves 4 others within a decade, it makes itself look third-rate and becomes very difficult for the casual fan to follow. That kind of franchise turnover is typical of a local beer league, not a major professional sports league. Hockey is rare in that it lacks casual fans - you're either die-hard or you don't care about it at all - and the constant changes make it much less appealing to the market segment the NHL needs to reach if it wishes to survive: the average American viewer. They will tune in to see a Yankees/Red Sox game, Shaq vs. Kobe, or Monday Night Football. Women's basketball got better ratings than the Stanley Cup Playoffs, which had a conference finals overtime cut off for preliminaries of horse racing. Even when it was on ESPN and Fox, nobody sat down to watch a random hockey game. Lacking a good TV deal now makes the situation even worse because many fans like myself can't get Versus on our cable provider. I was sick to my stomach when I went to a sports bar during the playoffs to see Ottawa/Buffalo and the game was being displayed on ONE of 30+ screens, a small one in the corner.

[batdad]

No offense Blindearth, but the NHL could not lose anything they did not have. Pre expansion they had a core audience. Post expansion same core audience. Nothing has changed except that Chicago keeps shooting its fanbase in the head with naff teams. Hopefully this is about to change.

The league has exactly the same fans--and there are casual ones (at least in Vancouver-cause playoff tix cannot be found ever) it had pre expansion. Nothing has changed. Just the cities the league expanded to have not brought many new ones.

The cable deal sucks! The spread of the NHL to cities without fans caused ESPN to relook at what they were doing, and thy rightly told the NHL to go stuff themselves. NHL has always been a loss taker on TV in the USA, both pre and post expansion. So what is the NHL to do? They had to have something on TV, so they took the only deal they thought (incorectly of course cause Butman is an idiot) would work...Should have taken a freebie from ESPN.

The US en masse does not care about hockey, and never will. Tis too bad, cause they are missing out on the most exciting and entertaining sport there is...too bad, so sad. And now....watch poker.....ZZZZz. Not sure what it is, but USA culture prefers boring television. Like poker and baseball...and football..and cars driving around in ovals.....ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. They can have it, I take my hockey.

[BlindEarth80]

No offense taken. I agree they didn't tangibly lose anything, but they didn't gain anything either. You also have to consider the pre-expansion era was over 17 years ago, so it's not all the same core of fans. There's a whole new generation who were small children or not yet born in 1990, and they're the ones the NHL has failed to reach. They are now watching basketball because the NBA has done a great job of marketing their game to the rap/hip-hop culture. Basketball wasn't nearly as popular back then, and that's when Michael Jordan was in his prime. There's an ebb and flow to sports popularity (baseball is actually way down from where it used to be, while poker wasn't shown on television at all prior to 2003) and hockey could potentially work its way up to respectability, given the proper circumstances. Unfortunately, most people who watched SportsCenter during the 90s saw the NHL adding new teams in unorthodox places every year and relocating others, thought of it as a joke and didn't want to give it a chance.

I do think the NHL has made some positive steps recently, such as the hockey players are just like me and you promos, giving the players an identity other than the consensus "Europeans whose names you can't pronounce" feeling. However, they are only shown during hockey games so it's like preaching to the converted.

Although I generally dislike the Blackhawks because of how they alienated the fans and ruined the franchise, I'm rooting for them to get on track and bring some semblance of interest back to hockey in Chicago.