Making the Hockey World a better place

Tiger Woods disappointed me with his comments about hockey. It's hard for me to take the same position as Mike Milbury because it is hard for me to criticize someone who plays a sport well (particularly one I do not have the patience to learn). It is easy to say "Woods is a pansy because golf is so much less difficult to play than hockey" and "I'd love to see him try to last just one period of hockey." And then I remember trying to learn how to play golf and the one million small things that have to be done perfectly in order to hit a golf ball even a few yards. Your posture, grip, back-swing, follow through, and head placement (among several other things) have to be just right in order to be even remotely good at golf. And while many hockey players play golf in the off-season, there aren't any hockey players who are on the PGA tour. So while calling him a wuss makes you feel better, it's not relevant to my disappointment.

Tiger Woods' comments make me sad because he is an ambassador of sports in general. For better or worse, he is more recognizable than the most recognizable hockey player (arguably Sidney Crosby, particularly if you listen to NBC). When Tiger Woods says something like "Hockey is teh suck," many non-hockey fans are going to listen to him and find more support for their ignorance of the sport. Which is sad. I would hope that Woods would use his notoriety to encourage people to check out other sports. Is it his responsibility? Of course not. But would it be difficult to do? Absolutely not.

I know all the arguments about why hockey has a hard time getting an American audience. Lack of big flashy stars, difficulty for kids to get involved in playing it, the idea that it's Canada's game, blah, blah, blah. It's a catch 22. The media doesn't pay attention because it's not worth their dollars and yet hockey has problems expanding their audience without media exposure to draw in the causal fans. The other day James Mirtle posted the front pages of many newspapers from the day after the Cup Finals ended. On the New York Times and LA Times front page, you'd need a magnifying glass to find anything about the game and these are two big markets with hockey teams. As much as I hate the bandwagon, know-nothing fans, they are necessary for the survival of the game. Case in point: Nashville. They have a very passionate fan base that is too small to support their team. They could benefit from an influx of casual fans.

But instead of wallowing and pouting, hockey fans need to work to get their sport more notice. The hockey Internet community is a great place to start. Bloggers like James Mirtle, Greg Wyshynski, and the good people at the AOL Fanhouse are helping to bring information about hockey to the Internet masses. But fans need to be more proactive. Like Gray said, there are things fans can do make hockey more popular. I start at a small level. All my students know that I am a huge hockey fan and I have had many of them tell me this year that they started watching Sharks games (though it was often to find out if I would be in a good mood the next day *^_^*). I even did a contest for picking the winner of the Cup Finals. Simple little things that I have done to expand the hockey fan base. And now it is your turn. That means you too Tiger Woods.

Thanks to our first and greatest commenter Will for alerting us to the link

Excuse me, Sir?

The Conn Smythe Trohpy is not a hat.

Image credit the NHL Frozen Moment, Photo by Gregory Shamus/Getty Images

Stanley is in the Building

We here at Couch Tarts would like to congratulate the Redwings on their Stanley Cup win tonight. We'd also like to congratulate the Pens on a well fought series. This series gave us one of the best hockey games I have seen in a while. I am sad to see this season come to an end.
Thanks for the ride, gentleman. We'll see you both next year!

A Terrible Idea. A Better Suggestion.

Now I'm telling myself that Tiger Woods probably said this in a somewhat joking manner, and we shouldn't take it so seriously. Maybe he was serious, and if so, it was a really dumb thing for him to say. He's an ambassador of sports and he should be more careful. But people say silly things all the time, we can deal accept that. I'm not really annoyed by what Woods said. It's what a commenter said that really got me going:

Let's face reality, Hockey means nothing to the US.
The NHL should shut down about 10 teams, move some to more cities in Canada and only be in proven US markets (Primarily in the North).
Maybe it could be 10 Canadian teams and 10 US teams and then each team would have a lot more skilled players.
The game could only get better.

Really? Do you honestly believe that by shrinking the sport and alienating fans in smaller markets that you will improve hockey?

I've only been a fan for a relatively short period of time and I am already very tired of hearing people say that the NHL should get rid of all the non Canadian/non norther eastern US teams. It's stupid. How can shrinking your markets, alienating establish fan bases, and reducing coverage help hockey? Maybe it will make the sport better for you personally, but it won't help it grow or gin new viewership in new or small but expanding markets.

Want to get people to take it seriously? Stop whining about the lack of coverage and start demanding better. More hockey on TV means more chances for joe/jill schmo and pals to flip past, stop, watch, and get hooked. Mentioning the local team on the news outside of the playoff will get the general awareness of a local team up and potentially draw in new fans.

Hockey fans shouldn't be ignored because of some outdated ideas regarding popular sports. A lot of Americans like hockey and there's a big chance to expand already successful smaller markets by improving local coverage. THAT will help hockey. Work on programs to help get low income kids involved in hockey. You never know what kind of talent we could find if we could find a way to extend the sport to kids who normally couldn't afford it. THAT will help hockey. Reducing the number of teams by getting rid of successful ones in smaller market areas will HURT hockey. Suggesting otherwise is ridiculous.

Edit: Californians like hockey

How do you sum up a 3OT Stanley Cup Finals Game?

I think the boys over at pensblog said it best. Congrats gentlemen. Way to kick the Wings fans where it hurts. We at Couch Tarts are hoping you pull off the near impossible. It'll be worth it to see Holmstrom cry.

WWCTD?

Couch Tarts would buy JR. OK not the actual person, but we did sponsor JR's page on Hockey Reference.com. Those little pages are so tempting to purchase, but we only got one. Currently, the tag is going to say WWJRD? but we are open to suggestions. God bless the interwebs and the ability to "pay" for little pieces of real estate.

Sharks, Deal or No Deal

Our uneducated guesses of who the Sharks will keep and who the Sharks will chose to let go come July 1st. This is based off an unofficial list of UFAs and RFAs. We left off the AHL guys because we don't know as much about them. Deal= keep, No Deal= moving on

Brain Campbell: Deal
Boucher: Deal
Ozolish: No Deal (we realize this might just be us projecting our desires onto the Sharks management. He was a good player and he has had to come back after facing some personal problems, which we respect him for. We believe he's past his prime as a player though, and that's why we say No Deal.)
Patzold: No Deal
Plihal: Deal
Rissmiller: Deal
Semenov: No Deal
Shelley: Deal, if they don't acquire anyone else deal

We think Clowe, Palvelski and Goc will get new contracts. On Ehrhoff we were undecided.