Europeans: Helping or hurting the CHL?

So tonight’s issue at hand looks at the lingering impact that the European hockey players are having on the  Canadian Hockey League.  The Canadian Hockey League as a whole, sans a few Canadian communities, has never been worse in terms of revenue and media attention it has been receiving.  More frequently than ever, club owners are continuously exploring the possibility of relocation with a few biting the bullet in recent years.  A once profitable industry has turned into a dwindling enterprise with questions being raised regarding ways the league can recover from this internal recession while getting it back to a point where it was in the mid-nineties.  As aforementioned in the opening sentence, we’re going to explore how, in my opinion, Europeans are negatively affecting the league and what actions league commissioner David Branch can take to restore this once proud tradition.

The Canadian Hockey League, at it’s core, is a developmental organization that is supposed to prepare young adults for the next phase of their life, whether that be in the game of hockey or outside of the rink. I cannot underline the importance of the league and the respective clubs to ensure these kids are receiving a solid and fair education because ultimately, only a select few players each year actually move on and forge a path into professional hockey for themselves. One of the vocal points when it comes to recruiting kids into the CHL is there signature education package. For every year of service in the league, the player is entitled to one free year of education.  Sure, there are a couple of loopholes and discrepancies in the agreement that don’t sit well with me, quite possibly the most glaring being playing in one exhibition game(and take note that playing in an exhibition game doesn’t get your name in ink on the roster), makes that player ineligible to explore any future NCAA opportunities that might come his/her way. To get this back to the topic at hand, and the reason I wanted to discuss the educational agreement is because it is seldom used by the Europeans. On average, Europeans stay in the CHL for one year and then for reasons unbeknownst to us, realize North American hockey isn’t for them and head back overseas.  With tuition costs seemingly sky-rocketing on a yearly basis, North American hockey parents know how crucial a paid education can be and it can’t  sit well with them that packages that top brass knows very well will never be used couldn’t be forwarded to kids who wholeheartedly intend to use it and attend a Canadian university.

Getting away from the financial side of the equation, as referenced at the top of the second paragraph, the premise of the Canadian Hockey League is to develop young adults. The Europeans who are selected in the yearly import draft are not coming over to be developed. They are usually eighteen/nineteen year olds who are only coming over because they view this as the next logical step in pursuing their professional hockey dream. Too many times over the years have I seen a European come in and take away ice time from a sixteen/seventeen year old Canadian who is more passionate and deserving of the opportunity and ice time then that European will ever be. The Canadian Hockey League has a storied tradition, and quite frankly from the hundreds of games I have watched over the years, I’ve never seen a European show true passion on and away from the rink, which very well could be why it’s hard for the average fan to get behind a player who doesn’t provide any, to steal a Brian Burke trademark ”truculence”. The game has lost it’s edge, and one constant complaint I read on forums is the lack of physicality in the CHL brand and this has turned away many at one time loyal patrons of this Canadian tradition. The National Hockey League has improved it’s image (at least on the ice), with a more up tempo, hard-hitting style, something the Canadian hockey League would be wise to replicate. Mr.Branch, allow our young North Americans to do what they do best, play fun up beat hockey and let boys be boys.

An interesting trend that I’ve been noticing the last few years is the growing number of Europeans who get sent home during Christmas with no return flight. Which begs the question, is the second European spot really necessary? With the Import draft being such a crapshoot, scoring a successful first round selection is hard enough, hitting a home run on the second round pick  provides you with the same amount of odds as winning the Lotto 649 in back to back weeks. With the limited information and resources league general managers have to go off of, one can’t fault anybody from missing the boat on the later round selection. I’ve always been curious to why more general managers don’t swing for the fences in the draft, especially in the second round and draft the sure fire NHLer. I realize there’s a 98%  chance player  X won’t report, but are you any worse off than having player Y come in that has the same skill and skating level of a novice hockey player?  The adage should be that if the Euro can’t contribute in the top six or top four defenseman, he shouldn’t be on the team. There’s absolutely no reason at all why a young Canadian who is chopping at the bit to play should be sitting in the press box in favor of an import. North Americans, by a general rule, are much more marketable anyway. All other things being equal, if I was a general manager I’d favor putting in, to use an example, a young kid from Alberta who the fans can really gravitate too and get to know as a person off the ice as opposed to a Russian who probably doesn’t even know where to locate Canada on the map.

Marketability is key, and the time has come for the Canadian Hockey League to scrap the import designation rule or at the very least reduce it. Just a suggestion here, but maybe provide the clubs with the option of having three 20’s and two Euro’s, four and one, or if they felt obliged five twenty year olds and no Europeans. To attract more fans to the games, the league has to make sure the players want to be here and are willing to sacrifice to put a great product on the ice and are willing to be visible in their local communities. This mantra just doesn’t work if the player can’t communicate with the public or engage in a physical brand of hockey, Something sadly, Europeans can’t provide fans in a league that has never been more desperate to boost it’s attendance.

Curling:A game made for T.V?

So to my fellow Canadian curling fans, I'm sure as most of you are well aware, this past weekend was the re-debut of the Grand Slam of Curling series on Rogers Sportsnet/Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. As to be expected, the calibre of play was fantastic, but at the same token a little dry.... Are there ways to improve the game to make it more viewer friendly? Similarly, what steps can Rogers and the CBC take to elevate the broadcast to reel in even the non-curling fan?


 To follow-up my opening, let me personally say it was splendid to see Grand Slam curling back in the national spotlight. As the summer faded out, it was starting to become concerning that there was still no T.V deal in place and the future of the grand slam events were in serious jeopardy. In August 2012, Rogers Communications came to the rescue, allowing curling fans all across this great country to breath a huge sigh of relief. Stability is key, and if Rogers stay committed to the product, it's most certainly plausible that the sport can reach a height that it's never seen.

To grow the game, it bottles down to the marketability of the players. Marketability relates to both off ice and on ice. In the games that were featured throughout the weekend, their was one common denominator, that being low scoring games that captivated a string of up and down the sheet ends that don’t provide the average curling fan the intricacies that make the game of curling so unique. Curling, in it’s purest form is a very strategical game that is a lot alike cat and mouse. Your next shot relies on what the opposition elects to play on the previous shot which is why no end is the same. This concept does not apply however when the entire end consists of peeling every rock on the sheet. Credit to the players, even the perfect freeze on opponent’s rock now a days can be easily removed, which is why I believe it is now an opportunistic time to employ the five rock rule(that has been used in select events), to create more offense and excitement. How the five rock rule works is similar to the four rock rule with the exception that the team that is without hammer would be unable to peel on the second’s first rock. This rule change should be made permanent in my humble opinion as the top teams have gotten so good with their take-out ability that the four rock rule no longer guarantees high-scoring affairs.

Now to me, the bigger issue in terms of growing the game is the on-air broadcast and the personability of the players through the duration of the game. It’s clear Rogers is in the game for the long haul now. In other words, TSN now has competition. The reason why the Brier and the Scotties and really the entire “Season of Champions” series have been successful over the years is due to the quality of the production. The tandem of Vic Rauter, Russ Howard, and Linda Moore is a nice mix between insightfulness and playfulness. The beauty of those three is that you get the impression that while describing the action, they’re also learning to make it easy for the average to below average curling fan to follow along. Sportsnet and CBC however, have yet to find the proper recipe when it comes to invigorating their broadcast.  This bone to pick goes way back to when CBC had the rights to the semi-finals and finals for both the Brier and the Scotties. It is such a bland broadcast. When enduring through a CBC curling broadcast then, and to a certain extent even now with this new agreement, I come away with the realization that I didn’t learn a single thing that I didn’t already know. Get to know the players! Dig deeper into the storylines of the particular game being shown! I recall the one year(and I apologize if this is incorrect), I was watching a Brier semi-final pitting the great Jay Peachey(who’s known for having the third who quite possibly lays claim to the greatest Brier ‘stache) and Mark Dacey. After the game in which Dacey was victorious, they were in the midst of interviewing Mark and they cut it off mid interview to throw it back to the in studio host to set the nation up for the next televised event. I realize it’s only one instance but it’s the kind of unprofessional coverage that leads me to think that all they really worry about is the revenue they’re raking in and not the quality of the media coverage. This point is confirmed when we analyze who the on-air personalities are. I’ll let Mark Lee slide because I’m assuming Bruce Rainnie will handle the bulk of the CBC games, but are we seriously going to be stuck with Joan McCusker and Mike Harris again? They say the definition of insanity is to continue to do the same thing over and over and expect different results. Well, either Rogers is an insane company which isn’t true or they were okay with the results all along, with the latter probably taking the cake. Russ Howard provides a sharp tongue and controversial opinions. In the past he’s made it clear that no one steers clear of his criticism, including his own son. On the other hand, Harris and McCusker play it safe in fear that they will say something that will rub one of their curling compatriots the wrong way. A personal suggestion of mine would be for Rogers to give ol’Randy Ferbey a call. He’s never been afraid to speak his mind. Wouldn’t a Ferbey/Cathy Gauthier combination be a lot more appealing then Mike” monotone” Harris, and Joan” that was a great shot even though it was a miss” McCusker? One can only dream. Rogers has a big opportunity ahead of him here. The Grand Slam, with the quality of fields could surpass the hype and excitement of the Brier and Scotties if done right. The onus is on you Rogers.

 

So the previous paragraph focused on media coverage, but we all know that’s only half the battle. Like any sport, the players are the real cash cows. Curling can never be mistaken for a high octane sport, but a little personality from our supposed top players would be appreciated. There’s a reason why during featured games the networks put microphones on the skip and the thirds to listen in on the dialogue. The expectation is that it would allow the viewer to hear the strategy that goes into each shot. Not only that, but the usage of the microphones should bring out the real personalities of these players to provide a sense of relatability to the viewing audience at home. It’s not helping when the likes of Kevin Koe are essentially whispering to the fellow third, or Kevin Martin starts making weird facial expressions that don’t seem to stop throughout the course of the action(Okay, that one isn’t so bad, just a personal beef of mine). The sport needs some drama, some controversy. As an avid curling fan, quite possibly my most memorable curling game, aside from the Brier that involved the great Jay Peachey, was that of the 2009 olympic curling trials in a game that featured Kevin Martin and Glenn Howard. Now, the curling game itself was “Peachey” (I’ll get an interview with him some day), but what made the game memorable was the infamous incident that involved Ben Hebert and Richard Hart. To refresh the memory, Hebert was sweeping a stone down to the house when he inadvertently swept his broom across the rock which in Hart’s opinion was unethical and it started an in game war of words. People will remember that. Or, how about the back and forth nasty newspaper dialogue that went on between Brad Gushue and Randy Ferbey after Ferbey was subsequently kicked off the Newfie’s team. Now, one can easily form the opinion that because Ferbey was involved one shouldn’t be surprised, because it was after all the volatile great from Alberta, but the point I’m trying to make is that it’s not about who, it’s about what. The more national attention this great sport gets the better the sport will be because of it.

If some how, some way the players would grasp the importance of becoming more visible in the public’s eye, the sport would attract new fans on a daily basis. Something the sport, the players, and the networks covering it so desperately need.

Anthopoulos goes fishing

Being from Regina, naturally the expectation is to be a proud supporter of the Toronto Blue Jays. However, for this particular individual, that has not been the case throughout the years. Sure, the days of seeing the great Californian Ed Sprague Jr patrol third base, witnessing the  eccentric center fielder Devon White run the base paths, marvelling at the  helmet wearing defensive first baseman Johnny.O, and the 1993 World Series hero Joe Carter providing countless great memories year after year were fantastic. However, one must remember that this all took place in the mid nineties. Gone are the glory days, enter the twenty-first century.

Since 1995, the Jays have been criminally(figuratively) mis-managed.  When Canadian Gord Ash took over the ball club after the 1994 season, the Blue Jays were in the midst of being considered a model franchise by respected baseball experts. That all changed simply due to a change of philosophy from management. The  brilliance of the  former Jays GM Patt Gillick was that he built baseball teams, not relying on one individual player to carry the horse. The mantra changed with Ash, because his philosophy was to bring in a star player(Clemens,Cone,Delgado,Canseco and the list goes on) and allow the afformentioned players to single handidly carry this franchise and have the other twenty-four men ride shotgun. This recipe was proved flawed before Ash, and the results were substantiated by the lack of success the Jays were accustomed to.

New ownership=new found success? Sadly,not. From approximately 2001 to November 2012, new owner Rogers Communication had shown no willingness in spending cash to improve the ball club. The cash was not spent and throughout the years Jays fan alike encountered several laughable organizational decisions, such as hiring their regional broadcaster who at the time had zero managerial experience in Buck Martinez. And, who can forget J.P Ricciardi's world like praise of then "super prospect" Russ Adams. The devastating part is that at the time they elected to rid themselves of the serviceable and reliable Alex Gonzalez for what, if you  believed J.P, was the next A-Rod. My problem with J.P was that throughout his tenure in Toronto, the farm system was what he put all his time and attention into while not putting enough focus in the on field major league product.

Which leads me to Anthopoulos, and the main gripe of today's blog, that being the trade that consumated on November 13th,2012 between the Toronto Blue Jays and now what we can safely call the AAA Miami Marlins. On paper, it would appear that the Blue Jays fleeced the Marlins. On sheer name power, they most certainly did. From the Blue Jays perspective, I have a few concerns however.

First and foremost, it concerns me that, what I will now consider the "fab five"(Buck,Bonaficio, Johnson,Buehrle and Reyes), were very "unfab five" like last year,.The Miami Marlins were a last place team in the National League East!  Will a move to Canada motivate these five? Or, will a change in scenery lead to sulking and a unwillingness to sacrifice for the team that they didn't expect to be suiting up for when they elected to take their talents to South Beach.  I just have a hard time envisioning a player like Jose Reyes, who some say has taken a step back in his abilities, being content with being the everyday shortstop on astro turf that historically is tough on the legs so that doesn't bode well for the oft-injured shortstop.  What's going through Josh Johnson's mind? Safe to speculate that going into the 2011 season, Johnson was a top five pitcher in baseball. Injuries and inconsistencies have prevented him from reaching that next level and one can only hope he can do for the Blue Jays to what Juan Guzman did in 1993 going into a contract year. I actually love the acquisiton of Buerhle, and even though he is getting long in the tooth, he is exactly the kind of pitcher I would want my baseball club to have on the mound in a pressure packed game in September.

Before I sign off, I pose this question with the expectation to get no responses being how this is a brand new blog.......does this trade open the door for former Miami Marlin and Chicago White Sox manager, who happens to have been in  Buehrles corner for quite some time now, Ozzie Gullien? He would create a P.R circus however I must take into account that Anthopoulos may consider him now solely based on his familiarity with the players heading north of the border.

That's all for now, I sincerely hope you enjoyed the read and I'll surely be back with more.

Thanks!

SYNOPSIS/INTRODUCTION

Hello, my name is Brett Murray.  Tonight(this morning),  I will be debuting a blog that solely focuses on the world of sports. This blog could go anywhere and everywhere, hence the fitting title of "Predictably Unpredictable". As this blog evolves, I could potentially venture into different areas but for now I will be focusing on relaying my thoughts on current events that have happened in the magnificent world of sports. I hope you enjoy.

Before I delve into my opinions, I'll provide you with what I hope will be a substantive reader base a little background on my sporting knowledge. Growing up, I was involved in many sports. Some of the sports I was involved with include golf,curling,baseball,hockey, and basketball. These five sports will be primarily the subject of this blog, but it should be noted that I am heavily knowledgeable in the game of football aswell,with preferential treatment given to the National Football League. My career aspiration is to someday get involved in the world of sports administration/sports marketing. I feel I have so much to offer in this specific field, and what better way to kick off this goal of mine then to dive into the sports blogging industry.