Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
Oh, Scott was - if not the butt of the joke - very close to it at first. But the way he has handled it gained him a fair bit of personal popularity. And that, I think, is one of the major reasons why this is turning into a public relations disaster for the NHL. Friedman's take is fairly interesting because his seems to be one of very few that is defending the NHL's position. (edit: equating it to 'online bullying' is just embarrassing for Friedman though.) Most others (give or take a git like Damien Cox) are lambasting the NHL for its handling of the situation. Even outlets like Forbes are starting to take on the 'NHLPA should investigate/file a grievance' position.
Ironically, removing Scott from the game has done more harm to the NHL's reputation than leaving him in would have. And as everyone in the media has been pointing out, toying with the vote has pretty much become an annual tradition among NHL fans. Can't fault anyone but the NHL for failing to learn the lessons of the past several years. |
Yup. It's the timing.
1) If the NHL had changed the vote rules "you can no longer votes for unlisted players" after the first stats came out, that's ok.
2) Even after the results closed and they came out and said, the John Scott votes are thrown out due to 'voting irregularities" that's ok.
3) If the NHL embraced the schick and let him play, that's ok.
But they chose the worst possible, they accepted the vote results,
ADVERTISED ALL OVER THE MEDIA THAT JOHN SCOTT WAS A CAPTAIN. And now they are striping it from him. That's just wrong.