Originally Posted by FusionX
I don't often catch the Marek show but unfortunately, I had a midday drive and was tuned in.
Honestly, it was all kinds of ridiculous but if this is what the media truly believes and to an extent, the league, in terms of profit/entertainment, I'm not surprised there is this uproar.
Coles' notes:
- basically says that star players bring the profit/value, ie. people go to watch them, and not having them in the line-up is bad for business
- compared NHL star players to NFL QBs and brought up the new "protecting the passer" rules in the NFL
- discussed the controversy around how some don't like this new rule as they feel the NFL is too soft now, brings up ex-NFL QB who says "tough, it's needed," basically
This next part almost blew my mind:
- they talk about how it's no longer at the level of the league, but that this is an issue at the NHLPA/player level
- suggested that the players need to sit down and essentially come to realize that the star players are paying their meal ticket and decide collectively to ensure they remain playing
- at some point, Friedman makes the statement to the essence of, "well, if they're injured on a legal play, that's fine, but not on an illegal play"
I mean, you may be thinking, surely that's hyperbole, but I assure you, I am not. I may not be quoting them word for word, but I'm not exaggerating anything.
How utterly ridiculous is this? I mean, there is a fundamental difference between a NFL QB vs one of 20 other skaters on the ice, regardless of skill or star power. If anything, the closest position in comparison in hockey would be the goalie, and guess what, there ARE rules in place to protect them.
Secondly, to give preferential treatment to star players in hockey, whether from players or reffing/league, would tarnish the game, and honestly, after listening to this conversation, if there is even a remote chance this happens, has already for me. This idea is just not comparable to blanket protecting the goalie (QB) league-wide.
And then lastly, they talk about protecting the star players to ensure they play, but then are ok if they're out from a "legal" play? WTF. If your ultimate point is that they should be playing, it doesn't matter whether it's a legal play or not that knocks them out. More than anything, this contradiction reinforces in my mind that if it's not already present, there is certainly a mindset where certain players should be "handled" differently. How to decide who though? Just the best in the league? Most marketable? "Best" player in a struggling market? I mean, why try to actually build a winning team if it's all about finding the league/player darling?
Anyways, I had to rant about it. If you're interested in getting needlessly frustrated or upset about something, have a listen (I'm sure it's online somewhere). But I guess if I am getting so worked up over this idea, maybe I just need to take a break from hockey overall, *shrug*
|