NHL: And The Debate Continues

"I think it's wrong" - Mike Milbury

And with those four words another name was added to the growing list of people who are slowly but surely altering their views on the role of fighting in the NHL.

During the second intermission of last Saturday night's game between the Toronto Maple Leafs and the Chicago Blackhawks Mr. Milbury joined the Satellite Hotstove panel to discuss the latest news and rumors circulating around the league. About half way through the segment the ever popular topic of concussions was addressed.

This is when Milbury, who up until this time had been a huge supporter of the pro-fighting movement, appeared to do a complete 180.

His rant started off by looking at hitting in general and explaining that the rule changes made in 2004, which aimed to cut down on the amount of hooking and grabbing against players carrying the puck, has sped the game up significantly. He believes that the added speed, coupled with today's bigger players, has made collisions "crazy".

Next, a short video montage was shown outlining past hits that have taken place throughout the league. He pointed out that the league has failed to make it clear "what is what" with regards to what is considered legal and what isn't.

At this point most people watching (including Milbury's fellow panelists) had to wonder if hell was actually freezing over. Here was a man who, just last year, had famously (or infamously) lamented the "pansification of hockey" and who now was questioning whether that same sport is becoming too violent??

And just when we thought we'd heard it all, he kept talking.

"And this also has to go one step further. We're going to have to include a discussion on fighting and the role of fighting."

Wait a minute. 

Is this the same guy who, in his playing days with the Boston Bruins, climbed into the stands during a game and beat a fan with their own shoe?? watch here

The thing is, the man was absolutely right!

"My point on fighting is we now have 25% of our concussions (setting a record) from this stuff (fighting)"

He then ended his rant by uttering the phrase that no one in the pro-fighting corner wants to admit or even hear.

"The only reason we have fighting in the game is because we like it."

Thank you, Mr. Milbury! Finally, someone willing to admit the one and only reason fighting exists in the game.

People like it. There is really no other valid reason.

Don't believe me?

Let's look at some of the main arguments people use to promote the 'importance' of fighting in hockey as well my rebuttals as to why I believe each one is not valid.

#1 "The threat of a fight deters players from making dangerous/cheap hits"

No, it doesn't.

Look at three of the dirtiest players in the league, Chris Pronger, Matt Cooke and Sean Avery. This trio constantly tops the Dirtiest Players In The Game list (voted on by players) yet very rarely engage in actual fights (10 for Avery - he normally hovers around 5 per year, 3 for Cooke, 1 for Pronger).

Seeing as how the top fighters in the league average between 16-20 fights so far this season, how can players coined as "dirtiest" have so few, if fighting is supposed to be a deterrent?

This is because after a dirty play is made by one of these players (or others like them) it is not the two players involved in the altercation that drop the gloves, it's both teams designated heavyweights - guys that were not even part of the initial play!

So how is a guy like Cooke supposed to be deterred from playing dirty when he knows he isn't even going to need to be the one who has to answer for his actions?

#2 "We need enforcers to protect the Crosby's of the game"

Do we really?

During the most intense, important part of the entire season - the playoffs, wouldn't this be the time that a team would most want to protect their stars?

Yet every year in the playoffs we see a huge decrease in the number of fights per game. In fact, we very rarely see the enforcers playing at all during the playoffs. If fighting is so important, then why is it not happening during the most important time of the season?

#3 "Ratings would plummet if fighting was removed"

First of all, no it wouldn't. Second of all, any "fan" who would stop watching hockey simply because fighting was removed, is not a real fan.

We're hearing a lot lately about how we need to make the game safer and reduce the number of head injuries. The reality is, hockey is a contact sport and with all contact sports come injuries. You will never get rid of them all. The league is left with two options; they can try and prevent the 75% of concussions that are a direct result of stronger, faster players, which is impossible or they can worry about the 25% they can control and remove fighting.

My guess is they'll keep going for that 75%

NFL: When Egos Collide

Let's pretend for a second.

Let's pretend that in these tough economic times you were lucky enough to be employed by a company that paid its employees a salary starting at $325, 000 per year (average). Let's pretend that after being with this company for 5 years, that average salary jumped to $1.9 million. What if I said that the bulk of this job would require you to work only 1 day per week for 16-20 weeks (albeit 16-20 very demanding weeks) each year, and that a completed college degree was not a requirement?

Pretty incredible, don't you think?

The average person reading this article would ditch his or her current job in favour of this scenario in a heartbeat, and be the happiest person in the world in the process.

But members of the National Football League are not your "average people".

Members of the NFL have the perks in their job which I outlined above. But instead of spending their off-season with their families, vacationing in one of their twelve beach houses, grateful for the lives they are living, they are... complaining!

You see, the latest collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between NFL owners and players is set to expire on March 11th (after being extended by one week to resume talks). And while one would think that these multimillion dollar players and their multibillion dollar owners would take a quick look at their bank accounts and this past seasons Super Bowl ratings which were the highest in league history, and start jumping over one another to sign a new CB, they are not. And now here we are facing the possibility of NO football next season, a possibility that grows with each passing day.

Why, you might ask? Well, apparently there are four issues which the two sides can't come to an agreement on:

1)  Division of revenue: The NFL generates between 8-9 billion dollars of total revenue each year (that's nine zero's for those of us unable to comprehend that amount of money).  Currently the players receive roughly 53% of this, while the owners (you know, the guys that give the players jobs) receive 47%. The owners are looking for a 50/50 split (I know, those unfair bastards!). The players on the other hand, are concerned over how the loss of that 3% will affect their ability to purchase that 6th island they've always wanted.

2) 18 game season: Currently, an NFL season consists of four meaningless... I mean, "pre-season" games and sixteen regular season games, plus playoffs. The owners, aware that pre-season games are a joke, are proposing two fewer pre-season games and replacing them with two additional regular season games. This idea is a huge hit with the fans, as they get to watch less meaningless games, played primarily by teams backup players, and more meaningful games. The players, however, are concerned over the added stress those extra games will put on their bodies. Can you imagine a firefighter saying to his fire chief, "sorry boss, but I've already done two calls today....."???

3) Retirement benefits: This is possibly the biggest issue of all and one that I tend to side with the players on. Right now these benefits only last for five years after retirement. The players believe that if the owners want to add two additional games to the schedule then they should extend a players health benefits upon retirement to compensate for the fact that a longer season presents a greater opportunity for injury. What is even more troubling is that under the old CBA a player would have to play for at least three years in the league in order to receive these benefits. Unfortunately, the average NFL career is only 3 years long, which means a lot of players retire without any health benefits at all.

4) Salary cap for rookies: This is really only an issue for the first year players. As it stands right now there is no cap on how much a rookie can earn on his first contract. Over the past few seasons this number has increased dramatically, to the point where players drafted in the top 5 are being handed contracts that are exceeding that of many veterans.

So there you have it; how a group of people who seemingly have it all, want more.

While I don't deny that each issue is valid in its own way, I think that it is embarrassing that these two sides seem unwilling to give an inch. At a time when so many people are struggling just to feed themselves and their families, a group of obscenely wealthy can't stop arguing over who will get to keep that 6th island.

NHL Trade Deadline 2011: Was it possible to live up to the hype?

As a kid growing up in Nova Scotia, Canada, I can remember spending countless evenings in front of the television listening to the local meteorologists forecast the next "can't miss" winter storm that was guaranteed to cancel school the following day, only to wake up the next morning to sunny skies and the familiar sound of my mother yelling, "get up before you miss your bus!"

It was with similar disappointment that I watched this years "Trade Deadline Special".

For weeks prior to the February 28th deadline, we listened to TSN and Sportsnet promote their respective stations Deadline Day lineup. 'Insiders' would update us on the latest rumors on what felt like a minutely basis. Hell, when your station is devoting 7 straight hours of coverage to a single event it HAS to be good, right?

Wrong! If not for the late afternoon trade of Dustin Penner, Deadline Day 2011 would have been comparable to watching a Sunday church service in Russian.

Now to be fair, the stations involved were not directly at fault for the lackluster day. Unlike previous years, 2011 saw the bulk of the major moves take place in the two week period leading up to the deadline. The problem I had with this year's coverage is the exact same problem I have every single year at this time; the stations create a level of hype that is virtually impossible to meet.

Every year Deadline Day coverage starts at 8am and goes through till 3pm. And every year NOTHING at all happens for the first 2 hours while the biggest moves rarely happen before 1pm!! But the unnecessary length of the coverage isn't even my biggest issue (350, 000 Canadians tuned in to watch this year, so clearly Canadians love their hockey talk regardless of the quality level).

No, my problem isn't with the lack of activity or with the length of coverage. My issue is that if you are going to televise a day long broadcast, one that has the potential to be slow trade wise, at least show enough respect for your loyal audience (you know, the people who keep your industry going) to be prepared with a day's worth of NEW material.

I'm sorry, but listening to guys like Pierre McGuire and Doug Maclean (among others) repeat themselves over, and over, and over, and over starts to get a little repetitive after the first 3-4 hours, no matter how big of a hockey fan you may be.

And while you're at it, here's another hot tip, when your panel of hosts/analysts are visibly getting bored with the broadcast, it's a pretty good indication that your viewers are feeling the exact same way.

So come on TSN/Sportsnet, next year quit taking advantage of your loyal viewers and give us some stuff we haven't seen.

Hey, I hear Charlie Sheen is looking for work!