Yzerman Down

Is there any better example of why players should wear a visor than the shot Steve Yzerman just took in the Flames-Red Wings game in Detroit?

While it might be too early to tell, it appears Yzerman was struck on or near his left eye. More later.

No Magic Bullet Here

Think the NHL is going to be a big winner with the growing penetration of HDTV in American households? According to Thomas Heath in today's Washington Post, you may have to think again:

"I don't think high-definition is a panacea," said Kenneth Schanzer, president of NBC Sports, which also plans to broadcast the first all-high definition Summer Olympics from Athens in August. "It will certainly enhance the viewing experience for the fan. But I don't think it generates any new viewers or any new revenues anywhere. In my heart of hearts, I don't think it will increase ratings."

The reason, many television and sports executives have concluded, is that all the new technology in the world won't make a sport more compelling if the product on the field, track, court or ice isn't already compelling.

"It doesn't wave a magic wand and make a sport any better," said David Hill, chairman and chief executive officer of Fox Sports Television Group.

"It's the quality of the game that matters. You have to have the goods," said Steve Bornstein, executive vice president of media for the National Football League.

In other words, if you're a "garage league" in standard definition, you'll be a garage league in high definition too. I've gotten a chance to watch hockey in high definition on the showroom floor a few times, and while it is incredible to watch (I could see a scratch in Peter Forsberg's visor), it's not a cure for a lot of what we're seeing on the ice these days.

To see what I mean, I'm going to refer once again to one of the biggest backers of high definition, Mark Cuban. Cuban, besides being the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, is also the biggest investor in HDNet, the first television network to broadcast exclusively in high definition. Although Cuban is talking about basketball in the following passage, he might as well be talking about hockey as well:

[W]hy in the world do we allow secondary defenders to take charges? What is the point of just stepping in front of a guy as he is going for a layup or dunk? Or for that matter, if he is dribbling up court and a defender just steps in front of him, all for the sole point of taking a charge?

Think about it. Is throwing your body in front of another player you are not guarding — solely for the purpose of seeing if he will run you over — a basketball play? I don’t think so.

The mavs have several guys who are good at it: nash, najera among others. They see a guy coming down the lane, they will subject  themselves and the other player to getting creamed in an attempt to get the charge. On some levels that’s admirable.  Give up your body for the team. Get the turnover and the ball back even if you are going to be in pain the next day.  Go team!

In reality however, it’s HORRIBLE for the NBA. Not only do you put both players involved at risk for injury, but it takes away some of the most exciting and watchable plays in basketball. Rather than going at the rim looking to make a spectacular, athletic play, guys are looking at the floor to see if someone is going to be there to undercut them. Rather than a tomahawk jam that gets the crowd in a frenzy, we get 2 guys laying on the floor taking an inventory of bodyparts to make sure they are ok, or we get a guy going to the rim trying to stop or avoid a guy who just stepped in the lane, resulting in an ugly shot or pass. How in the world does that help the NBA or make the game better for fans? It doesn’t.

Instead of charging, just substitute the obstruction and interference that takes place away from the puck, and the effect, though not exact, is much the same effect. And that's not going to look any better in high definition than it does right now.

Don Cherry Update

A couple of years ago, the CBC tried to force Hockey Night In Canada co-host Ron McLean out the door, but relented when confronted by a surprising viewer backlash. Now, with Don Cherry possibly headed out the door, McLean might ask out as well.

Steve Simmons at the Winnipeg Sun looks at the story behind the story of Cherry's possible departure:

The question is: How will people react to Cherry's imminent departure and will Canadians, a second time, pay more attention to a hockey personality than anything else that sells for news in this country?

The same CBC people who happily spend the Hockey Night revenue on other programming have always been offended by Cherry. But they have, in essence, played the part of television pimps, party to and profiting from what they truly disdain.

Now with Cherry at age 70, with a possible NHL lockout looming and the network revenue streams in doubt, they figure the time has come to do what they've wanted to do for years.

And, rest assured, Don Cherry will not go quietly.

At the Globe and Mail, an online poll on the subject was a near run thing, with a slight majority saying they wouldn't miss Cherry if he were fired. And if he is, there won't be any shortage of suitors for his services. Here was an interesting factoid I pulled from another article in the Winnipeg Sun:

While ratings for hockey have slipped, HNIC still averages 1.286 million viewers per week, skyrocketing toward 4 million during The Toronto Maple Leafs playoff run. Aside from Canadian Idol, it is the only Canadian-produced show among our nation's Top-20 and the only CBC show to average more than a million viewers.

So, let me get this straight: the CBC has an established track record of producing programming nobody wants to see. So they take their highest rated program, the one that produces more revenue than any other, and kick its star attraction out the door.

How in the world do those executives keep their jobs? Colby Cosh might have some answers.

Where does Don Cherry get his outlandish shirts, click here to get the word from the Toronto Globe and Mail.

Looking for a potential replacement? How about Brett Hull?

NHL Playoff Notebook

Tampa Bay 3 Montreal 1: If things don't change soon, the folks in Tampa Bay are going to start thinking that winning a playoff series ain't no big thing. So far, they've played nine games, have eight wins (seven straight since losing Game Two of their first round series to the Islanders), and two series wins. They've looked dominant most of the time, and in the rare instances where they haven't, hot goaltending and smart fundamental hockey have bailed them out.

So, has Stanley Cup fever gripped the Tampa area? Here's some words from Tampa Tribune columnist Martin Fennelly:

Fear the Bolt.

Let Philadelphia and Toronto bloody themselves silly.

Let them tear themselves to pieces for another week.

The Lightning will be waiting.

Together.

Wow. Almost 100 percent content free. Well, that's at least one resident of Tampa who's gone Cup Crazy.

As for the Canadiens, it was a somber end to a season they ought to be proud of. If all the team had managed to do this season was make the playoffs, they would have had to call the season a success. Instead, they made the playoofs with plenty of room to spare, developed a former goon (Sheldon Souray) into a legitimate threat offensive threat on the blue line, and managed to knock the #2 seed in the conference out of the playoffs.

Head coach Claude Julien and GM Bob Gainey have laid the foundation for this team to challenge in the East for as long as Jose Theodore wears the bleu, blanc et rouge. They've got young talent (Ribero, Ryder, Komisarek), along with a top line that's still in its prime (Koivu, Kovalev, Zednik).

Gainey has made me a believer. And kudos to the Montreal fans who stayed in their seats until the end and gave the Canadiens a standing ovation as the clock wound down with the result already decided. The future is bright in Montreal.

Tampa Bay wins series 4-0.

Detroit 4 Calgary 2: The next time somebody asks me why I love ice hockey, I'm going to want to reach for the videotape of those 18 seconds last night when the Saddledome rocketed from somber to supersonic. When Ville Nieminen faked Curtis Joseph out of his jock strap to score just moments after Martin Gelinas got Calgary back into the game, I rocketed out of my chair.

But as great as the moment might have been, I'm left wondering if it won't be Calgary's high-water mark this season. After all, Detroit took their best punch on the road, and was still able to secure a solid win on enemy ice. We're down to a best of three, with two of those games coming in Detroit.

They've won there before, but can they do it again? Dan Toth of the Calgary Sun is wondering:

The chance to take control of the series slipped through their fingers and Martin Gelinas knows it. "It was a 2-2 game, we battled back from a 2-0 deficit and we had 20 minutes to make it happen -- that's a huge opportunity but we didn't make it happen. We didn't pull through. We didn't have everybody going the way we had the previous game," the veteran Flames winger suggested after last night's 4-2 loss to Detroit, evening the best-of-seven series.

"We need to get back to our game. We need everybody to compete, play well and we need to play for 60 minutes."

Martin Gelinas -- grizzled hockey veteran, proven cliche machine. Catch him on the ice on Saturday afternoon.

Series tied 2-2.

Idiot Watch

I guess it was only a matter of time when an idiot on America's anti-war Left wanted to speak his mind about former NFL player Pat Tillman and his death while in action in Afghanistan. I give you Rene Gonzalez, graduate student at the University of Massachusetts:

I've been mystified at the absolute nonsense of being in "awe" of Tillman's "sacrifice" that has been the American response. Mystified, but not surprised. True, it's not everyday that you forgo a $3.6 million contract for joining the military. And, not just the regular army, but the elite Army Rangers. You know he was a real Rambo, who wanted to be in the "real" thick of things. I could tell he was that type of macho guy, from his scowling, beefy face on the CNN pictures. Well, he got his wish.

Just when you think it can't get worse, it does:

Tillman, probably acting out his nationalist-patriotic fantasies forged in years of exposure to Clint Eastwood and Rambo movies, decided to insert himself into a conflict he didn't need to insert himself into. It wasn't like he was defending the East coast from an invasion of a foreign power. THAT would have been heroic and laudable. What he did was make himself useful to a foreign invading army, and he paid for it. It's hard to say I have any sympathy for his death because I don't feel like his "service" was necessary. He wasn't defending me, nor was he defending the Afghani people. He was acting out his macho, patriotic crap and I guess someone with a bigger gun did him in.

Last time I checked, both al Qaeda and the Taliban were still active in Afghanistan. Guess some folks don't read the papers.

You can read an editorial from the paper's Editorial Board defending the decision to run the piece here. And as much as I might despise both Mr. Gonzalez and his arguments, I'm happy to support the paper's decision to run his editorial.

What we have next is a test in a number of ways. Here's hoping the administration at the university protects the freedom of expression of Mr. Gonzalez, those who would criticize him, as well as the newspaper that ran the offending article.

Fight free speech with more free speech -- no matter how stupid and heinous your opponent might be.

Link via ESPN.com.