blogovich

Passport: Just get one and stop whining

Just posted this passport story to our web site and while it is funny - particularly that Dubya Bush, Mr. anti-terrorism, didn't know.

But the issue of getting a passport - which will be necessary to cross the Canada-U.S. border as of Monday, June 1, is getting old. People have been complaining about ever since the policy was announced when the U.S. Homeland Security department decided to try to clamp down on border crossings.

Look, you need one, just get one. And not just for crossing the great so-called undefended border. For travel anywhere. It's good to have. Mine expires in Sept. 2011 and I plan to renew it some time earlier that year, if not late 2010.

It's your own fault if you wait until the last minute and endure lineups. Deal with it.

NHL Stanley Cup final rematches

Interesting that since 1948, every Stanley Cup final rematch but one (1984 Edmonton Oilers over New York Islanders) has been a repeat victory for the defending champions.

We'll see whether that holds true for this year's rematch of the champion Detroit Red Wings and Pittsburgh Penguins. 

Rematch history:

1948: Toronto sweeps Detroit in 4; the Leafs duplicate the feat over the Wings in 1949.

1957: Montreal beats Boston 4-1; the Habs dispatch the Bruins in 6 a year later.

1959: The Habs beat the Leafs in 5; they sweep them a year later.

1963: The Leafs beat the Red Wings in 5; a year later, it takes 7.

1968: The Canadiens sweep the St. Louis Blues and do so again a year later.

1977: The Habs sweep the Bruins. A year later, it takes 6 games before Montreal wins.

1983: The Islanders sweep the Oilers. A year later, Edmonton takes the Cup in 5.

The caveat (at least from Islander great Denis Potvin's point of view): The 1984 series was the first of a two-year failed NHL experiment to duplicate the World Series and NBA Finals 2-3-2 format. In both years it was used, the Oilers split the first two on the road and won the next three at home (in 1985 the Philadelphia Flyers were Edmonton's victims). Potvin will go to his grave decrying the format (I know this because I talked to him while working at The Hockey News in the late 1980s) as being unfair and, given that the NHL dispensed with it after two years (though for a time, it was later used, in the 1990s, during conference finals) he has a point.

Lots of folks have long compared the Red Wings and Penguins to the Oilers and Islanders of old in terms of a possible changing of the guard and all that. But right now, before the series begins, injuries and all, I still think Detroit wins it. The Red Wings' depth is amazing. 

Stanley Cup final back-to-back games: So what?

Just heard Doug MacLean, former NHL coach-GM turned TV blowhard go ballistic over the Stanley Cup final schedule that sees the Detroit Red Wings and Pittsburgh Penguins playing back-to-back games to open the series. 

They play Saturday and Sunday.

So freaking what? What is with people's memories? Back in the 1970s, at least in the first best-of-seven round, teams opened with the first four games in five nights. 

These guys are "warriors", right? (But hey, nobody in the NHL does performance-enhancing drugs; they're better than everyone else in pro sports with their ability to play every second night for two months during the playoffs; yeah, OK).

As for the back-to-back games? Shut up, you critics. It's nearly June. Get it over with as quickly as possible.

Archie picks Veronica over Betty and other such fictional decisions

Wow. Archie's gone for the, er, spoiled (insert word for female dog, this is a family blog) and the bucks over Betty.

By now you've heard the news, Archie, of comics fame, will apparently propose to Veronica, leaving her the victor in the long-running battle with Betty for Archie's affections.

More on the Archie website.

Veronica talks about it on her blog. The comments on her post are a scream. And Betty is pretty broken up about it on her blog.

I think he's making a mistake, though as many respondents to various polls have suggested, in these tough economic times, Archie is going for the $$.

I've always said, Veronica for one night, Betty for life.

It's one of those ongoing fictional arguments, though, isn't it? Like, for instance, in another cartoon, The Flintstones, Betty or Wilma. NO contest. Betty by a mile. Friends of mine used to, and I imagine a lot of guys do, get into these sorts of discussions. You'll be sitting in a pub putting back a few and then suddenly you push the conversation in another direction with a simple "Betty or Wilma?".

Never have I heard someone say Wilma. Regardless, whichever one you picked in the Flintstones, those giggles would have to go.

Ginger or Mary Ann, from Gilligan's Island. See "Veronica for one night...."

Star Trek The Next Generation: Counsellor Troi or Doctor Crusher? Troi is the obvious one and we wouldn't turn her down, but I've always kinda had a thing for the doc, and I've never considered myself that much one for red-heads.

Anyway, good fodder for (useless?) thought.

The U.S.- Canada border and 9/11 terrorists: er, when you cross from Canada, it's U.S. customs you have to go through

For the life of me, I cannot understand why U.S. officials hold to the myth -- though Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has backed down a touch - that we have a porous border.

Maybe we do, maybe we don't. But even if the 9/11 terrorists got into the U.S. from Canada, correct me if I'm wrong but when you cross the border from Canada, you're dealing with AMERICAN customs officials.

So maybe the U.S. government should be looking at how well they're doing their jobs and stop pointing fingers?

People's names should be sacred

OK, sure, I'm a bit biased here. My name's been mangled so many times in my life I'm a bit sensitive to it though I will say things have improved immeasurably in the last 20-plus years. 

But what is it with the hockey community? I just heard Hockey Night In Canada's Jim Hughson refer to Chicago Blackhawk goalie Cristobal Huet as "Chris". Has Hughson asked Huet how he wants his name used and/or pronounced?

If he's good with it, fine. And if Hughson's asked and gotten permission, I retract. But it's like every French-Canadian player named Martin (particularly Martin Brodeur); they've long since become "Marty". Do they consent to this?

For that matter, does Sidney Crosby consent to being called "Sid"? Maybe he prefers Sidney. Does Alexander Ovechkin want to be called Alexander or Alex? I think it's worth asking. I knew a guy in high school whose name was Martin. I called him Marty once. Never again. He hated that version of his name and from then on, I respected him. Michael Richards of the Philadelphia Flyers, when he played for the Kitchener Rangers, made clear that his name was Michael and he preferred to be referred to in that manner and we at The Record respected that.

Since Richards made the NHL, though, it's become a lost cause. He's Mike now. 

And that's too bad. 

 

Midnight bed time makes Obama a night owl?

U.S. President Barack Obama told C-SPAN in an interview today that he typically stays up until midnight looking over various files, after he tucks his daughters into bed (somehow, I don't think he still tucks Malia, age 11, into bed).

Anyway, he calls himself a night owl. Midnight? That's regular bed time for lots of folks.

Hockey TV ratings: depends what country you're in

Is there anything more tiresome and repetitive and tiresome than reading Canadian newspaper columnists mention how far down the TV ratings list NHL games, playoff or otherwise, rank in the United States vis-a-vis the NBA or whatever else, bowling, tractor pulls, whatever? (and I like bowling). Just read another one. To protect the guilty and maintain relations within the profession the name will not be revealed, but it could be any of many.

Anyway, it's irrelevant and cheap. You could do the same thing with NBA ratings in Canada vis-a-vis NHL ratings. NBA ratings are pitiful in Canada. So are NCAA tournament ratings, for that matter, despite the annual hype (and I love basketball).

Here's the thing. The U.S. is a country of 300 million-plus people of myriad interests and, increasingly, cultures. Hockey is not and never will be the No. 1 sport in the U.S. Just as basketball or baseball are not and never will be the No. 1 sports in Canada. That's just the way it is.

But by the way. . . if something gets a neglible rating of, say 1.0 in the U.S., that still represents perhaps a million or two TV sets tuned in to, perhaps, an NHL game. Still more, in most cases, than watch a given hockey game in Canada, on average.

Besides which, for all those critics who contend that hockey does not belong in the U.S., answer this question: why, then, are you so worried about U.S. TV ratings? (this last point courtesy my perhaps even more informed-skeptical brother John, a noted member of the golf journalism fraternity with the Canadian Tour and lifelong sports follower).

And another thing: I was once one of those who criticized U.S.-TV fuelled NHL playoff hockey in the afternoon until I remembered (and wrote about) the fact it's been with us since the 1970s. And it's not so bad, really, a 3 p.m. Sunday game. You have the rest of the day to do with what you will after that and it also allows some wiggle room in the event of a long overtime.

And many of the critics of afternoon hockey are likely the same people who decry baseball playoff games starting so late that they (allegedly) shut out the young generaton of fans who might embrace the games. (Which is another crock, by the way. Once kids reach a certain age they stay up later and are going to watch whatever, whether it be sports or otherwise. My own two sons are examples. So there likely is no lost generation).

Why the U.S. has more NHL teams -- more people (and some comment on, sigh, Gretzky, too)

I'm Canadian. Love hockey. Most if not all of us do. But I get tired of hearing things from Canadians like, when Jim Balsillie is going for an NHL team, along the lines of "why does New York City get 3 teams and Toronto and area just one?"

Chances are, Toronto and area could indeed support another NHL team. But let's look at some facts. Toronto's Census Metropolitan Area population is 5.1 million. When you add the 1.9 million CMA of Kitchener-Waterloo, Hamilton, London, Ontario and St. Catharines combined (the areas from which a new team would draw), you have 7 million.

New York's CMA? 18 million humans, folks, 22 million if you count commuters from Connecticut, for instance. That's why New York (the Rangers, the Islanders, the New Jersey Devils) has 3 teams. Only the Rangers regularly fill their rink (and by the way, have as much history as the Toronto Maple Leafs), true. But with 18 to 22 million people to potentially draw from, whether these are rabid hockey fans is essentially irrelevant. With those kinds of numbers, your margin for error is greater.

Same thing with Los Angeles, which has a CMA of 13 million and is supporting 2 teams, the Los Angeles Kings and Anaheim Ducks.

And by the way, the LA Kings have been in the NHL since 1967 and when have you heard of them being in trouble? And this despite the team not having made the playoffs in years. This notion of NHL teams in southern climes not or never working simply doesn't hold up. It depends, as proven by the Kings, San Jose Sharks and the Ducks. And please don't credit Wayne Gretzky; the Kings were OK before he arrived and continue to be since he left -- Gretzky gets the credit when things go well in the south, for allegedly planting the seed, yet it's NHL commissioner Gary Bettman who gets the vitriol when things don't go so well. It's nonsense.

If you really must cite Gretzky, how about talking about how easily he gets off in all this? He's Teflon in Canada, but let's face facts. Great hockey player, lousy coach and manager. He's never made the playoffs in 4 years behind the Phoenix bench in his first-ever coaching job at any level. At a reported $7M to $8M annually, no less, when the average NHL head coaching salary is $1M.

If he were wise he'd never have put himself behind the bench in the first place -- what were his coaching qualifications?. Perhaps he should have built up some coaching/managerial credentials first. And he would long since have resigned to save face and ease pressure on majority ownership; I mean, who's got the guts to fire Wayne Gretzky?).

And as part-owner, isn't Gretzky at least partly responsible for the team's financial situation? If he were more efficient as a hockey man (remember, this is the guy who hired former Edmonton Oiler buddies like Grant Fuhr as parasites when he took over in Phoenix; people suggested it was the Phoenix FOG, i.e. Friends Of Gretzky) might not the Coyotes have been more competitive, filled their rink more often, and not met with their financial woes?

Nobody, of course, ever mentions this. Oh, yes, Gretzky "led" Canada to Olympic gold as GM in 2002. C'mon, anyone could have managed that team and besides, he was a figurehead and let's not forget he was the one, in the same role, who added the disgraced Todd Bertuzzi to Olympic Team Canada 2006 over more deserving talents, with poor results. It is not being anti-Gretzky to suggest that just because he was a great player does not mean he's a great hockey builder, as has been proven by results.

Back to Balsillie, the Coyotes, and Hamilton, and alleged NHL-Bettman bias against Canada -- while some sources indicate the NHL has been aiming at southern Ontario behind the scenes, if you're the NHL and trying to "grow" your game, your footprint, logic suggests you keep trying in non-traditional U.S. markets (crazy as that may sometimes seem to those of us north of the great undefended border) rather than placing more teams in a cornered market in Canada where you are not going to create any new fans.

Balsillie asking for public $$ . . . nice

Big surprise. Jim Balsillie, billionaire, wants taxpayers to help finance his bid to buy the Phoenix Coyotes.

Essentially, that's what he has asked as he has come forward asking for government funding to refurbish Hamilton's Copps Coliseum should he land the franchise. 

And governments are already starting to cave, or think of doing so

They do so because they fear being, or know they will be, held hostage to the notion that "you better finance me or else you'll lose all this positive economic impact" from sports team owners, or prospective owners.

Well, it isn't true. At least according to my sports bible, Major League Losers: The Real Cost of Sports and Who's Paying for It. I wrote a column on this book years ago, a revelation, actually, and a sports-follower (me) defining moment. 

Every politician and/or holder of the public purse should read and fully digest this book. But, they won't, because they see having a sports franchise as validation. And they'll be held hostage again.