On the Forecheck: Back in my day, we didn’t call ‘em “Bloggers…”

On the Forecheck: Back in my day, we didn’t call ‘em “Bloggers…”:

Then I remembered the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, a handy way of peeking back through the curtain of time to see websites as they used to be. Sure enough, In the Crease is in there, and in one of the oldest issues they have captured there, is a piece I wrote after getting my first press pass to an NHL game. This wasn’t just any old game, however, it was March 26, 1997, when the Colorado Avalanche came to Detroit to face the Red Wings, in Claude Lemiuex’s first visit to Hockeytown after the infamous Kris Draper hit.

We should probably remember that there was a time before the web, also. Laurie and I ran the first San Jose Sharks list (and at the max, about 35 hockey mailing lists), which came into existence before San Jose actually played a game. Early on there were a number of writers doing very detailed write-ups of games (most notably Nelson Lu, who was effectively the list’s “beat writer” for years). We’ve had a quiet and mostly positive relationship with the Sharks for years (more active when Matt Levine was with the team, but we still keep in touch, so to speak). It was in 1994, I think, that we first showed this interesting new thing to the sharks called a browser and a web page and suggested that the team that lived in silicon valley could use it to reach out to fans. They did (not through us….), and I believe they were the first NHL team with any kind of web site.

When Laurie and I ran the web site for the Spiders (1995-96), and hosted the Icedog’s web site (written and maintained by a friend down in LA), we both had full access press passes and photo passes, and Laurie also did some photo work down in Long Beach for the dog’s web site.

So this stuff’s been going on for a long time. It’s great to see bloggers hitting the mainstream and being taken seriously by teams; I still think that both teams and bloggers need to be realistic and understand that simply hanging out a shingle on a blog doesn’t make you qualified or worthy for getting special privileges, but there are definitely some writers on the net doing a much better job than many of the hockey “writers” that happen to get paychecks.

Me, part of me kinda wishes it was 10 or 15 years ago, when we were younger and more motivated to try to make things happen. today, honestly, I much prefer enjoying hockey games than working them, and our seats are a damn sight better than the ones in the press box. (this is one reason I don’t do the in-depth referee critiques I used to do; I got tired of taking notes at games and doing the research to make the critiques worth reading; be wary of turning your points of joy into jobs, boys and girls….)

I still have one project I’d like to do some day, At one point, Matt Levine approved it, if I could get the book contract, but I decided to focus on my computer work again. Now that I’m moving back into my writing again, maybe it’s time to dust it off and see if it’s worth doing. Hell, these days, it’d make a really fun set of articles for the Sharks web site instead of (or as well as) a book…. THAT might be fun….

Checking Line » Blog Archive » Bettman’s Biggest Failure

Checking Line » Blog Archive » Bettman’s Biggest Failure:

Now let’s get to where he actually messed up…

Ultimately, Bettman’s biggest failure as commissioner was that he didn’t achieve what he did during the lockout years earlier… and that goes for everything from the salary cap, to revenue sharing, to the changes in the rule book.

The game on the ice was allowed to slip for too long. Defense will always ‘win’ and coaches will always coach defense first. The league allowed scoring to drop too much before doing anything to counteract this effect. The changes they made during the lockout were years in the making and it’s important that they realize now that if they don’t do anything again for the next 10 years the game will again get ‘boring’. And fans need to recognize that being proactive is good for the sport, not the bad thing many so-called traditionalists make it out to be.

Off the ice, the league was unstable financially for too long and, despite what some people will tell you, the financial landscape did lead to a competitive imbalance. Expansion would be viewed as less of a failure if markets like Miami were more in a position to be competitive for their first 13 years of existence.

This is a valid point, but if people look back to the lockout of 1994-95, the owners came out of that stoppage with a CBA where they thought they’d “won” and fixed the problems. It quickly became clear that they hadn’t, as the agents found ways around things like the salary cap for rookies, and arbitration escalated salaries.

There was a later time when the league had the option to open the CBA (1999, I think) and chose to extend it, instead. Was that a mistake? Yes. but it was also, it seemed, a practical reality. It has to be remembered that the labor stoppage wasn’t about the “league versus players” per se. It was more complicated than that, in that there are two factions among owners: the high revenue teams like Toronto and the Rangers, and the low-revenue teams like Calgary and Buffalo. Until the pain became bad enough that even the higher revenue teams agreed that something needed to be done, there was no reason to open the CBA, because politically, the owners wouldn’t be resolved and unified (enough) to get the changes needed to REALLY fix things. (it’s unclear they still have, although early indications are encouraging).

So it’s no failure if you come out of a fight thinking you won (and didn’t), and then later wait until you know what has to be done AND have the backing of your side to make it happen. opening the CBA early, only to have a faction of the owners agree to a new CBA that doesn’t solve the problem — well, it doesn’t solve the problem. probably makes it worse.

What this really comes down to is that you have factions of owners more interested in their own success than the league’s success (and yes, that is stupid and shortsighted but Bettman can’t fire an owner, he works for them), and the process Bettman and the varous ownership factions had to work through to generate concensus and actually unite the owners long enough to make change possible. And while that took a while, it looks like Bettman finally succeeded at it.

And it’s no failure waiting on a fight until the odds favor you. Unless of course, your business fails in the meantime. but the real look of the internal politic among the owners indicates taht it had to get pretty desperate before some of the owners would come along for the ride and admit they had to agree to some of the changes.

And bettman probably deserves more credit than he’ll get for getting that group of 30 rich, ego-driven, successful and stubborn businessmen to all agree about anything, much less about enough things to get this new CBA in play….

james mirtle: The end for Saskin? – A hockey journalist’s blog

james mirtle: The end for Saskin? – A hockey journalist’s blog:

The best piece written so far on the ridiculousness that has been going on with the NHLPA and its executive director Ted Saskin came from the New York Post’s Larry Brooks, who gets all of the nasty details from last week’s conference call out

My gut still tells me this isn’t a huge thing. I could be wrong, but I’m still not convinced there’s a significant movement against Saskin; instead, there are a couple of movements going on here. One is the small group of anti-Saskin people (Trent Klatt and Chris Chelios being the core leaders), and I think this thing’s been sitting around the PA festering and refusing to go away long enough that there’s now another group that simply wants to find a way to find closure, and if that means bringing in Block to investigate, fine. Saskin’s response is understandable in this situation, too, because I”m sure he REALLY wants it to go away sooner rather than later.

There are really two issues here: is the PA acting like a professional organization (at a basic level, following the bylaws of its charter and not breaking its own rules), and was Saskin brought on properly. the latter was clouded early, but there was a vote of the membership that seemed to clear that up (if only in hindsight), and that leads me to believe Saskin probably will be okay. The larger issue, however, of the organization operating within its charter is an interesting one, adn is as likely to touch folks like Vinnie Damphousse, arturs Irbe and Kirk McLean as it is Saskin himself, if there’s anything serious found.

larry brook and his axe-to-grind, and Tom Benjamin’s assumption of worst possible case notwithstanding, I still believe this is more a bureaucratic sitaution and not a major crisis for the PA. But we’ll see. But I think it’s important to wait and see, and not go running off making judgements based on this investigation being approved or the tempers on the phone call.

MercuryNews.com | 01/31/2007 | Tough loss for Sharks

MercuryNews.com | 01/31/2007 | Tough loss for Sharks:

The Sharks’ struggles in the shootout continued.

They lost to the Dallas Stars 3-2 on Tuesday at HP Pavilion after hitting the snooze bar in the third period and frittering away a two-goal lead.

I’ll give the Stars some credit for taking the win here; the turned it up a notch to get back in the game, and the Sharks were slow to respond.

And for some reason (I’ll have to go back and check), it seems to me the Stars have a tendency towards pulling ties out from losses against San jose. I remember watching the last minute of the game and going “oh no, not again” at watching the action going on. I thought we were almost able to hang on, but they found a way.

What surprised me was that we scored twice on the shootout against Turco. The Sharks clearly noticed something; both of the scored goals involved a move towards Turco’s glove side, then shooting high over the stick. that looks to be Turco’s weak spot (if you can hit it….)

If I were a hockey player…

This one’s rolling around the blogs…

If I Were a Hockey Player:



Team: Los Angeles Kings

Uniform Number: 18 (but it’s not available)

Position: Defense

Nickname: “hey, sumo!”

Dream Linemates: Doug Wilson

Rounding out the PP: Rogie Vachon, Wayne Gretzky, Phil Esposito.

Job: Getting back on D to let the talented players play.

Signature Move: Dropping to block a shot. Screaming and wetting myself when it happens.

Strengths: changing uniforms between shifts.

Weaknessess: Too many to list.

Injury Problems? legs, feet.

Equipment: half-shield. short, wooden stick with very little curve to allow backhanded handling and good passing.

Nemesis: Ron Hextall.

Scandal Involvement: I thought the Pink Poodle was a pet shop!

Who I’d face in the Stanley Cup Finals: As a King? Anyone from the eastern conference — just to GET to the finals.

What I’d do with the Stanley Cup after our victory: Get the Cup a star on Hollywood Boulevard.

Would the media love me or hate me? love me. I’d always get them coffee when I’m a healthy scratch.

(and those of you who thought it’d be the sharks — don’t know me very well… )

With great love and respect to…. Jeff Odgers and all of the lunchpail crew, Robin Bawa, Robb Zettler and all those D guys who play 20 minutes a night with no points and are plus; Craig Ludwig and his shins of steels, and Pat MacLeod and David Williams….

Fraser Speirs – The Loupe: a two-edged sword

Fraser Speirs – The Loupe: a two-edged sword:

As I was processing this image in Aperture, I started to think a bit about the way I work through photos in that application. In particular, I was thinking about the way I balance editing decisions between evaluating the technical aspects of a photograph and the emotional impact.

I realised that I’m way too obsessed with the technical. One of the tools at my disposal that contributes to this is Aperture’s loupe tool. With the flick of a key, you’ve got a 100% view of the tiniest detail in your image. It’s very easy to detect a fractionally missed focus or slight motion blur in any image without first thinking about what the image really shows.

That’s not to say that the feature isn’t useful, or that such matters are irrelevant, but it has certainly led me down a path of technical obsession that I associate more with amateur camera magazine critiques than with the images I find personally compelling. Take one look at National Geographic, or the VII archives. You’ll find ultra-grainy, motion-blurred images.

i went through the same epiphany recently. I think this is part of the maturation of a photographer; It’s easy to focus on the technical (i.e. geeky) aspects of photography, and lord knows, photography is almost as much fun as scuba or computers when it comes to encouraging toy buying. But at some point, you start seeing what’s behind the technical details, you start seeing the whole of the photo, not just the pieces.

I’ve had a few of these ephiphanies. I remember reading articles and books that talked about sharpening, and looking at before and after, and going “huh?” — and I remember the day I looked at photos and going “oh. THAT’s what sharpening does”. Before, I could tell (some of the time) that one photo was clearer than another, but in most cases, sharpening is a really subtle improvement; you cna tell, but can you tell why? And then, suddenly, I could see it.

The second ephiphany was when I could really see OVERsharpening. And I think most photographers go through a “if a little is good, a lot is better” phase. I also have gone through a “let’s kick the saturation up a notch” phase. so… All of this is, I think, part of the process of really learning effective, quality photography. And I think what digital photographers are learning (or have learned, or will learn) is that despite all of the digital aspects of photography today, it’s still a very analog discipline, and the technical underpinnings are exactly that — underpinnings.

Tom Benjamin’s NHL Weblog: Vive la CNHL Libre

I’ve been trying to think about how to respond to Tom. Whether to. I’m not sure his CNHL needs any response, but I feel it deserves one. But not a mean or angry one.

Tom Benjamin’s NHL Weblog: Vive la CNHL Libre:

It’s too late to stop making it worse? It’s past time to stop digging, to climb out of the hole and to bury both Gary Bettman and the American Dream. It’s past time for the game to return to it’s roots. It’s past time for the owners of the Canadian teams to acknowledge that the American market has been lost and to decide that it is far better to be a very large frog in a small pond than to drown in the American ocean.

It is time for the Canadian teams to seize the day and to separate. To secede. To fire on Fort Sumter. To stop subsidizing the American market. To form a more perfect union, the Canadian National Hockey League.

Revenues – and profits – per team would take a large leap forward even if they shorten both the regular season and the playoffs. If the American NHL survives, great. There can be genuine competition for talent between the two leagues. It is not hard to imagine a playoff (perhaps including a couple of European leagues?) in an international fight for the Stanley Cup. Gary Bettman can even keep trying to make his grand plan a reality. Good luck to him.

I don’t know if Tom realizes it or not, but he’s effectively picked up the call of Quebec separatism and mapped it to Canadian hockey. Canadian hockey is special. It’s distinct. It’s better off on its own, instead of as part of the larger hockey ecosystem. There are aspects of this — that are frankly true. it’s an emotionally powerful argument, one that I expect every Canadian hockey fan can relate to to some degree.

But like the Quebec “situation”, the problem is in the details. And the funding. I tried to take Tom at face value. I started analyzing the proposal and assumptions “Revenues — and profis — per team would take a large leap forward even if they shorten both the regular season and playoffs”.

Is that really true? Think about it. Let’s assume, for the moment, that the CNHL splits off. Add two teams: Winnipeg and Halifax (to make Ron MacLean happy). That gives you four western teams, four eastern teams. two conferences, no divisions.

So — how does revenue go up here? you add two teams, the TV contract from CBC (assuming it doesn’t go down) gets splits 8 ways instead of six (footnote 1). But in reality, Tv revenues go down — after all, we’re cutting the # of games. Fewer games, fewer ads shown. fewer ads shown, less ad revenue, lower payments to the league, which now get split 8 ways. Also, currently 2 canadian teams are (from best data I can find) paying into revenue sharing, while 8 US teams are. Two canadian teams (edmonton and Calgary) seem to draw on revenue sharing, to 7 US teams. So assuming revenue sharing doesn’t change, Montreal and Toronto will subsidize Calgary and Edmonton, but the overall share will go down, because there won’t be any US funds and more US teams were contributing to revenue sharing than taking back out…

Season: how about playing the other conference home and home (8 games total), and playing in conference — how many times? 7? 8? how soon will you get tired of seeing Vancouver, anyway? 7 x 3 is 21 games, plus 8 is 29. Okay, three home and home in the other conference (24), plus 21, is 54 games. or we could go 62, but I can hear teams whining about travel costs already. Vancouver flying to Halifax and back four times? fun!

54 games is a 35% reduction in # of games. 62 is a 25% reduction. that’s a loss of 1/4 of your gate receipts, and probably a loss of 1/4 of your TV revenues, and a reduction (but less than that) for other secondary revenues like boards and signage. But since the league is basically gate + CBC revenues, as the number of games go down, so will revenues, and so will salaries. Only thing that won’t go down is ticket prices.

Players: Tom, I think, is making the basic assumption that Canadians will go home and play in the CNHL, and Americans will play in what’s left of the NHL, until it blows up and fails. He doesn’t really talk about the Europeans, but there seems to be an assumption they’ll go home and play in Europe. Now Canada can staff up an 8 team league fine — no question. But he left a little bomb in his statement “competition for players”.

Anyone remember the WHA? Probably not. It’s a dim memory for most of us, but it was also the last time open competition for players happened; and what happened was salary inflation and illogical contracts: even more illogical than Alex Daigle’s deal was. Today, there’s competition for 2nd tier players between the AHL and the European leagues — in practice, the European leagues are winning most of those fights now. Players will go where the money is.

Tom seems to be envisioning an alliance of leagues based more or less on national lines, with some kind of “world cup” competition for the Stanley cup. Unfortunately, the IIHF does that today, and as we can see with problems like the russians and the transfer fees, not very well. Split the US and Canada in two, and put outright salary competition in place — and hockey falls into absolute chaos. Things like what we saw with Malkin would become common. Someone ask Igor Larionov if he thinks this would be a good idea…

No, more likely: the American owners who have deep pockets without US TV dollars will still have deep pockets. They’re paying these salaries today; they’re going to lose paying in a chunk of revenue sharing to the canadian teams, deepening the pockets some. With a 20-24 team league (compared to 6-8 teams in canada), a 70-75 game schedule, even an 80 game schedule is still very possible. that means that the net loss in revenue on the American side is a lot less than the net loss in revenue on the Canadian side.

End result: the Americans, no TV contract to speak of notwithstanding will be a lot more capable of sustaining high salaries than Canadian teams; figure a 10% loss of revenue to a 25% loss of revenue. So the logical result is that the CNHL has, overnight, turned into a AAA league.

Tom has, whether he wants to admit it or not, just invented the CFL. The US NHL may not have the national TV dollars — but that doesn’t mean they’re poor. And the US will still end up with the larger league, the better funded league, and the league with most of the premier hockey venues (NY, Detroit, chicago, boston), excluding Toronto and Montreal. With equal or better salaries, you can expect the better players to come to the US NHL. With the better players in the US, the CNHL will struggle to compete; of the three major reasons a player might choose one league over the other (“1) more money”, “2) playing against the best”, “3)playing for the home country, or near home”) Canada loses two out of three. And as all the Europeans in the NHL today shows – the third one isn’t a major draw.

The reality is — Canada needs the US in the NHL, warts and flaws and all. In reality, with or without a major US TV contract, there are a lot of rich old pharts down here in the states willing to put up money because they also happen to love Canada’s game — and where necessary, subsidize it and throw money at it to make sure it succeeds on both sides of the border. And they depend on normal people — people like me, and Laurie, and every other American who buys a hockey ticket every year — to help fund their love of the game. Lose the US, and you don’t have the magic of Tom’s CNHL. you have the CFL, arguing about what the quota for native players vs. imports should be every year.

A couple of data points that are somewhat relevant here, or at least interesting (to me). (*footnote 2)

Where 25 years ago 80% of the NHL roster spots were filled by Canadians, that number is just over 50% now. In the 2006 draft, Canadians were no longer the majority of players drafted — 83 Canadian, 120 not (half of those U.S, followed by Sweden, Russia and Finland). In a way, it’s clear that hockey is no longer JUST Canada’s game; it’s a world game, of which Canada is a very special part of it.

The last season the NHL was Canadian only was in — 1923. For the 1924 season, the league expanded into Boston. (The REAL original six, by the way, is arguably Hamilton, Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, the Monreal Maroons and Boston; the current “original six” is really just a marketing hook, it’s the “six franchises that have successfully not kicked off yet”). In 1925, Hamilton went away, and Pittsburgh and the New York Americans joined. In 1926, the league expanded to ten teams, split into two conferences, and added the NY Rangers, teh Chicago “black hawks”, and the Detroit “Cougars”. We now have six teams in the US, and four teams in Canada (with the NY Americans evening out the Canadian division) — and never again would the league have as many (or more) canadian teams. So “Canada’s game” has actually had more franchises in the US than Canada for over 90 years now. The “Black Hawks” became the “Blackhawks”, the “Cougars” became the “Red Wings”, and various teams went away — and that’s how we ended up with the “original six” we honor today.

The Pittsburgh Pirates isn’t one of them. The great depression hit, and the owners of the pirates ran into financial difficulties. After the 1929-30 season, they “temporarily” moved the team to Philadelphia while they waited for a new arena to be built in Pittsburgh, where they played one year as the Quakers, and then went on hiatus, never to be seen again. Pittsburgh, in fact, wouldn’t return to the NHL until the civic arena was built in 1961 and the NHL brought the penguins to life as part of expansion in 1967. The civic arena is the building that now needs to be replaced — or the Penguins will again leave town, but I doubt they’ll call themselves the Kansas City Quakers. (Philadelphia didn’t see hockey again until the WHA moved the Miami Screaming Eagles (who never played a game in Miami) to Philly for 1972-72, where they played one season, then became the Vancouver Blazers for two years, and then the Calgary Cowboys for one final kick at the can. Two years later, they faded to black, and Philly didn’t get an NHL tam until expansion in 1967, Vancouver in 1970, and Calgary in 1980.

(footnote 1: this unfortunately reminds me of the old joke: a woman goes into a pizza parlor and orders a large pepperoni. The man asks “do you want it cut into 6 or 8 pieces?” she answers: “6. I can’t eat 8″)

(footnote 2: there will be a pop quiz. class dismissed)

PuckUpdate .: The Hockey Blog :: Archives Archives (weekly)

PuckUpdate .: The Hockey Blog :: Archives Archives (weekly):

It’s an interesting idea. One thing you learn watching Center Ice is the quality of hockey telecasts can vary pretty widely. Some have knowledgeable analysis and great production, while others look like they were shot by bootleggers.

The Sharks did us fans a favor, and in 1997 went out and got Frank Albin, formerly of Detroit (Tigers Tv and before that Red Wings). He took a pretty good broadcasting setup and made it a great one. It shows, especially ocmpared to some other teams, where things like focus and following the play are sometimes a problem. We also have some really sharp broadcasters (Dan Rusanowsky, who’s been here since year 1, and Randy Hahn, who came on full time in season 3 give us play by play guys that are among the top on the league.

It’s good to see the NHL making it a league initiative to get this stuff up to snuff. Especially as the league moves to HD, it’s going to be crucial. fortunately, the sharks are on the leading edge here, too.

globeandmail.com: Duhatschek: Scheduling deja vu all over again

globeandmail.com: Duhatschek: Scheduling deja vu all over again:

Bettman, who usually says little about the internal workings of the board, acknowledged that he supported one of two alternatives, either retaining the status quo, or adopting the least dramatic change — which would have reduced the number of divisional games from eight to seven and replaced them with four out-of-conference games.

If Bettman had pushed harder for a change, could that have swung a couple of votes to the yes side?

He didn’t think so.

“Some of you think I throw lightning bolts,” said Bettman. “The fact is, I do report to a board and the board has the final say. “Unlike lots of other things we’ve done as a league, where everybody can focus on doing things from a league-wide basis, the schedule’s kind of personal. It’s market-specific. It’s rivalry specific. It gets emotional. In the absence of what I call a catalyzing event – a reason to have to do it — it becomes more difficult. So for example, if Pittsburgh has to move, I guarantee you this issue would get resolved. If they don’t have to move, maybe we’ll just sit tight and see.

Of course, this is what I’ve been saying all along — Bettman’s job is (a) taking the heat for the owners, and (b) at best, working to build consensus. He doesn’t run the league, he manages it for the Board of Governor,a much different thing.

It’s more galling that the teams that did this were, it seems Ottawa and Montreal as the swing votes. So much for Hockey Day in Canada, one of the few things the NHL can look at with an unbiased “good job” reaction from everyone.

I did have one question: it took 2/3 vote to agree to a new schedule? I wonder what kind of vote would have been required to change the number of votes it’d take to change the schedule? And maybe the next thing the Board should consider is changing votes to a majority from 2/3rds? Because this isn’t majority rules, this is the tyranny of the few, and the league is suffering.

So once again, it boils down to a simple concept: the only way to get the league’s notice is hitting them in the wallet, which means buying fewer tickets (or in our case, selling more games off, which will cut day of game sales a bit). One season ticket holder won’t mean much, but if fans start staying away — especially from these “too many” divisional games — teh league will eventually notice.

Of course, when we do that, it’ll just fuel the “hockey has failed in the united states” arguments again, so we’re screwed no matter what we do.

nuke the young stars…

HockeyNation:

While he probably isn’t soliciting advice on how he runs his league, Gary Bettman might want to read some of the tea leaves coming out of this years all star break in Dallas.

While the actual all-star game was its typical high scoring, non hitting self, a Harlem Globetrotters like excursion into fancy passing and goal tender abandonment, the real chatter has been about the Young Stars game the night before. And, well Mr. Bettman, cover your ears, because the reaction has not been nice.

The consensus seems to be that the Young Stars showcase should be dumped, the contest which features the young up and coming talent in the NHL was described as a bit of an embarrassment by some, and a debacle by others. You would be hard pressed to find one article or conversation that said it was the event that made the break a success.

I know I came out earlier and said “just enjoy it for what it is” — but I fully agree. the young stars is a disaster.

Phil Esposito on XM ripped it to pieces; his argument was that any coach who saw players playing like that in practice, he’d have a cow and probably sit them. when the inevitable comparison to pond hockey was made, Phil ripped that apart, too, noting that in pond hockey, you at least try a LITTLE to stop a shot. This was, in fact, worse than pond hockey — Esposito called it (and I agree) little more than warming up a goalie before a game.

When the All-Star game was in San Jose, I have to admit the best part for me was the heroes game. The old pharts had fun, and we had fun watching them, and nobody expected any serious intensity from them. Damn sight better than what I saw this week (and we still have a puck given to laurie by Richard Brodeur; as a former goalie herself, Laurie was just tickle…)

Espo admitted he couldn’t watch it; he switched to American Idol. I wish I’d thought of that…

A change is needed. Why are we playing the “maybe somedays” instead of honoring the names of the past, anyway?

Off Wing Opinion: In Defense Of A Golden Age That Never Was

Off Wing Opinion: In Defense Of A Golden Age That Never Was:

Which begs the question: What is it that Tom wants?

Check that, as I should put it more directly: Tom, what do you want? Because as it stands right now, other than the right to complain about anything and everything you want to address (which after all is your right), I’m not sure what it could be.

So lay it out for us. If you could replace the Gary Bettman Hockey League (GBHL) with the Tom Benjamin Hockey League (TBHL), what would it look like? And what are the realistic chances of it existing anywhere but inside your own brain case?

Here’s your chance, Tom. Let it all out.

I’m going to jump in here, also….

What the NHL needs most right now is a little patience and time — from itself, from its fans, from the media. A chance to see how well the changes it’s made have worked, and give it all a chance to settle out. We all have to stop over-analyzing and expecting instant success. It’s a process, it takes time. Some decisions will work better than others, but we need to give them a chance to find out which ones.

The media’s the worst about this — but then, the media’s job is to get people to read, and good news doesn’t sell newspapers (or click ads); so it’s easy to get into the “raise hell” mode, but it’s a slippery slope. Fans tend to follow the media, and that generates noise and criticism.

And the league doesn’t have the backbone to ignore it all and see it through. Look at the noise about making the net bigger: it’s WAY too soon to consider something that radical (and make no mistake, it sounds simple, it’s radical). That feeds back to the folks criticizing, because it makes it look like the league also thinks things are broken.

Reality: they aren’t broken. they’re just not perfect. never will be. And the world won’t end if we just watch for a season or two to see how the tweaks work before starting the next set of tweaks (except for the schedule; we know it’s broken. unfortunately, the league won’t admit it)

Expansion: no.

Moving teams: if Pittsburgh doesn’t come across in two weeks, the penguins go to K.C. We’ll agree to offer Pittsburgh a new franchise once the building is actually built (it worked in MInnesota!). Others? we’ll wait and see. I don’t think any of them are more than 50-50.

Schedule: every team plays home and home. Balanced conference schedule to the greatest extent possible. I’d love to cut the schedule to 74-76 games, and perhaps add another playoff round, first two rounds 3 of 5 instead of 4 of 7.

I want to see the entire league committed to making ALL NHL markets “traditional hockey markets”, rather than having this current hockey caste system; Just look at the current schedule disaster — could it be that some of these so-called “nontraditional markets” that are considered struggling are that way because the successful teams aren’t interested in helping the league succeed — they only care about their team.

I want to see good management in ALL of the NHL cities, but especially the major ones. And yes, that means regime change in Chicago.

(and honestly? I’d love to see a team back in Winnipeg — but I think Kingston is a much more viable market).

Tom Benjamin’s NHL Weblog: Here We Go Again

Tom Benjamin’s NHL Weblog: Here We Go Again:

I do, however, care about the further dilution of the league. That dilution is what makes yet another expansion penny wise and pound foolish. (It won’t stop them though. These clowns specialize in penny wise, pound foolish moves.) The NHL is a gate driven league and most teams need to ice a winner to draw well. Making it harder to become a winner – and adding a couple more losers – will really help, eh?

Not only will that reduce every team’s chance to win – to be good, to make the playoffs – within a few years, it adds more teams that nobody in any existing city wants to see. That’s the real reason people speak wistfully of contraction. The expansion in the 90′s was far too fast because we’re left with a league where more than a third of the teams have very shallow roots.

These are teams that nobody outside the local market really cares about even if they are good. Nobody hates the Ducks like people hate the Leafs. Few outside of Anaheim love the Ducks while the Leafs and Wings and Habs – and even the Canucks – have supporters outside the home town. I’ve got nothing against the Blue Jackets or the Thrashers or the Panthers but I don’t care about them and I really don’t care whether I ever see them play another game.

Fans want to see the storied franchises, the great teams and the great histories come to play the local heroes. There are too few excellent matchups in the current schedule and there will be even fewer after expansion. That’s fewer games with the electricity and emotional atmosphere the Red Wings – or even the Black Hawks – deliver to an opposing rink.

Bring on the Kansas City Scouts four to eight times a year. Move the Red Wings East so we can see them once in blue moon. Won’t that be great? Why? So 30 greedy guys can get a little richer.

Haven’t the fans been abused enough?

Tom gets to the root of his disgruntlement. You know what? he has a point. It’s not one I agree with completely — but he has a point.

Speaking for San Jose, the teams that have the strongest support when they come into town are — Toronto, if they were ever allowed to visit, Detroit, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh. We used to see a lot more blackhawk fans, but the Wirtz’s have beaten them into a stupor. And — Dallas and Colorado are quite popular, too.

And here’s where Tom and I somewhat disagree. Fans don’t want to see the “storied” franchises. They want to see THEIR franchise. “Their” is defined one of two ways: the team you grew up watching (in my case, the Kings; and yes, I still haven’t completely untied that knot) and in some cases it’s a team they adopted, either because of a special player or because it’s winning, and fans love winners.

So that’s why teams like Detroit, Dallas, Pittsburgh and Colorado have so many fans in San Jose: those are all teams with recent stanley cups and players (Yzerman, Modano, Mario, and Roy/Sakic/Forsberg/etc/etc/etc..) to tie your affiliation to. In other cases, like toronto or philly or Boston, there’s a lot of “I grew up there” or “I grew up watching them” to tie people to. and for Toronto and Montreal — those teams are like the Cubs in baseball or Green Bay in the NFL. The history is there, and draws fans like moths to a flame.

But note that not all of those teams are “storied”. they’re successful. And you have to be a hard-core old-phart to remember Hartford or Winnipeg or Quebec City, much less want to pine for their demise (memo to nobody in particular: yes, we own jerseys for all three; still looking for that GREEN Nordiques jersey they wore one year, though)

And that is an issue here. The more teams you have, the harder it is for any one team to win a stanley cup. That is one of the best arguments against expansion we have, and it’s not one easily argued away.

On the other hand, I would argue that MOST of the advantages of winning the Cup also go to the teams who go deep into the playoffs, even if they fall short. IF you’re one of the last four, you’ll see much of the groundswell the winner sees. This, I think, explains the resurgence of the Oilers and Flames the last few years, after both teams were on life support not very many years ago (they also have the other key things: good management, good coaching, and some guys fans can rally around like Iginla and Kiprusoff).

Tom’s argument is also a wonderful argument against the way the NHL is scheduling, especially given their decision not to unbreak the schedule (going back to the old way would have unbroken it; it still ought to be fixed, but beggars can’t be too picky). Ask the philly fans, or the ottawa fans, or the toronto fans here in san jose their thought of the schedule. then duck, especially if you look like Gary Bettman.

In theory, one of the things fixed by the new CBA that I know Tom is so fond of — is this problem of winning the cup. Remember, in 10 years prior to the lockout, Tampa Bay, New Jersey(3), Detroit(3), Colorado(2), and Dallas. Not a lot of variety there. And one intent of the CBA was to create the salary cap, and one of the things the cap is intended to encourage is parity, and the reason parity is good for the league is because it’s bad if 8 of ten Stanley Cups go to three teams. Unless, of course, you’re a fan of one of those teams, or choose to adopt it as your team from some other city (and I circle back to my original thought above….). so the hope is, under the new CBA, to spread the “playoff karma” around better….

As to the great unspeakable: contraction. He’s why the “storied franchise” concept fails, and why contraction will never voluntarily happen in the NHL. Right now, and for at least the last five years, if you created ANY list of teams to consider as contraction candidates, the top of the list isn’t Nashville, it’s not Atlanta. It’s not a “non-traditional market” or a “southern team” or even a “marginal market”.

it’s Chicago. And even Blackhawk fans will agree to that, if they’re being honest. And that is a non-starter from day one (and should be), as well as an indication that it’s not about having over-expanded or being in bad markets or a bad TV contract. It’s about ownership (good and bad) and winning and losing. Early indications are that the new NHL is encouraging teams to be more competitive — which can only be good in the long run.

Because out of parity comes teams that win, winning teams make the playoffs (just not the same teams every year), and teams that go deep get attention — create stories that fans latch onto.

So maybe it is about “storied franchises” after all….

HockeyNation

HockeyNation:

Well, my fearless prediction of a bit of sanity to the schedule makers’ routine was a bit off base after all. The NHL Board of Governors sat down in the big boardroom on Tuesday, rolled up t heir sleeves and brought out the elbows. In an 19 to 11 vote, the NHL chose to stick with their current scheduling systems, weighted as it is to divisional and conference play and keeping some of the higher profile teams away from the boondocks outside of their conferences.

The league turned aside the plan, which featured six divisional games and 18 games against the other conference. This at least would provide glimpses of the teams from the far off kingdoms once and a while.

What selfish, short-sighted idiots. What absolute stupidity. Gah.

For what it’s worth, I finally stopped chewing on the inside of my cheek, and emailed the following to Greg Jamison (president of the Sharks) today. Not that I expect it to make a whit of difference, but I was tired of waiting for sanity to win out. And yes, Laurie and I are serious, the new schedule does cause us to sell more games, and it’ll likely to accelerate next season. And if YOU are a season ticket holder and if this schedule makes YOU sell off more tickets — I suggest you send your team’s president a letter making sure they know that.

Greg:

I’ve stayed out of your hair on this one, but it seems the attempt ot

move back to the old schedule format is failing. I want to encourage

you to do what you can to NOT let the NHL continue the current

scheduling disaster. As one of your season ticket holders since year

one, and someone who’s at the arena for 35+ games a year, all this new

“unbalanced” schedule does is make us want to sell more tickets, not

fewer. We’re likely to cut back, because while there’s always going to

be one “rivalry” team that really draws our interest (Anaheim, this

year), there are going to be other teams that — well, not so.

I really want to encourage you to argue with the people on the BoG in

the eastern division to put the fan’s interests front and center for

once. The fan response to the current schedule has been pretty much

uniformly negative, and I’m rather irritated at what I see as a “what

the fans want doesn’t matter” attitude from the league on this issue.

My preference always has been, and continues to be, a guaranteed home

and home with every team and a schedule aimed at balanced conference

play with “extra” games going to division teams, because ultimately,

playoff seeding is conference based and anything else seems to allow

for biasing of the results based on divisional strength or weakness.

It looks like a schedule of that form has no chance of success, but

I’d like you to at least carry the fan’s and the western conference’s

argument that the current schedule doesn’t work.

The NHL is pushing two marketing themes: the “young guns” (crosby,

malkin, et al), and the Original Six (which is a permanent theme

around the league) — so why does the NHL set things up so that the

things they’re promoting aren’t available in manyNHL cities?

XM radio’s had a promo that goes something like “awarding the Stanley

Cup means 29 teams are now looking for sweet revenge”, a wonderful

concept, but the way the current schedule goes, 10 of the 30 teams

have NO chance of that unless they meet in the Cup final, because they

don’t play the cup champion at all.

Because of things like than inequity, and because the “young guns” are

going to be different over time, the only fair thing is to make sure

teams play — at least once a season. I’d strongly prefer

home-and-home, but without even one game a year against the other

teams, much of what the NHL is promoting to its fans isn’t avaiable to

its fans, especially out west where we only have two of the original

six, and where the “canada teams get preference to canadian teams”

means we don’t get the Leafs and Habs, either.

How is this supposed to promote hockey in non-traditional markets,

when those markets aren’t allowed to see the league’s most promotable

items, anyway?

I know you’re doing what you can, but I’m really tired of watching the

league screw this up, and I felt it was time to ask you to yell at

these guys a bit and try to get them to see the fans view; all they’re

doing is honking the fans off a this point, and that’s not good for

the sport.

Good luck….

Sincerely, Chuq

(hey, can we get the draft out here one of these decades?)

(reference: http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=2740152&campaign=rss&source=NHLHeadlines)

Duncan Davidson: Use, and Misuse, of Photographs

Duncan Davidson: Use, and Misuse, of Photographs:

This particular case, in the scheme of things, wasn’t a particular major abuse. I’ve had worse happen to my photographs, including misuse by Fortune 500 companies in cases where the only restriction on a photograph was a request for attribution. But it was still disappointing. As is every single other misuse. The effects are cumulative. It’s because of these sorts of events that I now watermark all my images and have scaled back the maximum size of images that I upload to Flickr. It’s not pretty, but it’s apparently necessary.

In this particular case, there’s a very nice ending. I left a message on the post requesting a change. And, quite quickly, the image was updated as requested.

Why does this matter so much to me? Well, it’s quite simple. I support the ideas that the Creative Commons stands for. I believe that creative culture needs to be fed from within. And I believe that current Copyright law goes way, way, way too far in its protections. But, it’s important to note that the Creative Commons isn’t about obliterating Copyright. It’s about working with it to regain a sense of balance. And, it understands that various levels of protections are important to different creative endeavors.

All I can say is — what he said. Agreed completely, and this is why I use and support creative commons, also.

here’s weird thought for All Star week

Here’s a really weird, radical thought for All Star Week.

Just sit down and watch the All Star game and enjoy it for what it is.

You aren’t going to see penalites. Or hitting. or checking. or forechecking, backchecking or any other word that contains the word “check”.

So? What you’re going to see is an exceptionally talented group of offensive players playing offense.

Instead of worrying about what it isn’t — enjoy what it is. Just sit down, pop open something cool and refreshing, and watch the fun.

We can all go back to whining and kvetching next week.

Tom Benjamin’s NHL Weblog: Inconvenient Truths

Tom Benjamin’s NHL Weblog: Inconvenient Truths:

Tom’s on a roll. Fun to read. too bad the data doesn’t tend to back him up…

As always, we should remind ourselves that the number published by the NHL is not attendance or even tickets sold. It is tickets distributed, which includes giveaways. In some places a significant number of tickets – some used, some not – are free. In Nashville, Leipold said he is giving away about 1,500 tickets a game. Attendance cannot be better than the numbers the NHL is delivering up, but it can be a lot worse. The league can publish anything they want to publish as an attendance number.

Tom uses the only data point we have — Nashville, which people generally seem to agree is the worst case in the league, and tries to paint the rest of the league with the same level of freebies. Sorry, I want data, Tom. (and when I get further down, I’ll show even Nashville’s not an indication of a league-wide problem. In fact, pretty much NOTHING you talk about here is).

NHL good news story. San Jose has also showed good improvement, the improvement we would expect in a decent market where on-ice performance deserves better fan support.

(good improvement? has San Jose ever been under 98% full? yes, seat sales dropped ~500 a game or so, and that 500 or so is picking up again.. this is significant? When the sharks hit a rough patch, and as the silicon valley economy did also, demand softened. That’s actually the point both Mike chen and I have been making: that these “problems” in the league are really team issues, primarily driven by BAD TEAMS. Most attendance is driven by success, or lack of it. Nothing the home office does can save a bad team from itself.

The concern is all in the bottom half of the league. Four of the teams are (supposedly) playing before crowds between 90% and 95% capacity.

Notice Tom’s sly use of quotes, to try to “prove” his point in your mind without ever “showing” any, well, “facts” to back him up. Other than planting the idea in your head that Nashville is having this wide use of freebies, so by definition, so are all the other teams. I call bullshit, until he comes up with data.

Carolina is the Stanley Cup champion and the numbers still suck. Anaheim is part of a huge market and considering that the Ducks are probably the best team in the NHL, they are still drawing like Carolina.

Anaheim: Anaheim’s actually up about 3000/game from 2002-2003, almost 4500 from 2001-2002. Perhaps the reason it hasn’t grown most year over year is that it’s done a lot of growing in previous years, so there isn’t an easy base of fans to convert; they’ve been converted.

Um, why are we arguing over anaheim or Carolina this year? 2006-07 attendance in Carollina is averaging 92% of capacity, Anaheim is 91.9%. Last year, they were around 83%. They’re both up nicely this year. (see http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/attendance?year=2007)

Atlanta is another very large market (one where the NHL has previously failed)

Actually, the team wasn’t doing badly in Atlanta. The team owner’s other business (dry cleaning) failed, forcing the sale. in 2001-2002 and 2002-2003, atlanta was drawing 13,500. This year, 15,800. 15% improvement over five years? Not bad.

The Coyotes (yet another big market) have a bad team, but they have a new rink and after a decade of trying they still can’t draw what they could have drawn in Winnipeg had the team not relocated.

Phoenix is drawing 14,200. Winnipeg Jets never drew 14,000 in the last five years the team was in Manitoba.

here’s an unfortunate fact Tom doesn’t want to deal with: Carolina is outdrawing Hartford, Phoenix is outdrawing Winnipeg, and Colorado is seriously outdrawing Quebec City. but let’s not let facts get in the way.

This is not just about the fact Gary expanded the league to places without any hockey history, to places where one might expect to see struggles. This is about the fact that previously great hockey markets, markets with great tradition are being – have been? – destroyed.

And lest we forget, the Gary Bettman lockout and the Gary Bettman Hockey League were designed to address these problems. More parity and a more attractive (to Americans) game were supposed to fix these problems instead of making them worse. Not only are the attendance issues more serious, media coverage is down all over the US and TV ratings are microscopic.

Ah. the Gary Bettman factor. It’s all Gary’s fault.

There’s only one problem with this. the facts don’t back it up.

John Ziegler ran the league from 1977 to 1992 (and left in disgrace). Gil Stein from 1992-1993. Gary Bettman arrived in June, 1993.

Average attendance per game in 1992-93, the year before Bettman arrived, was 14,046, a total attendance of 14 million.

Average attendance per game in 2005-2006 was 16,954, total attendance 20.8 million.

This “disaster” (to use Tom’s infamous “quotes”) is an 18% increase in attendance per game, and a total attendance increase of 6 million bodies, since he took over the league.

as to TV…

The SportsChannel disaster was Gil Stein’s work. It started in 1988, ended in 1992. For those that compare OLN/Versus to SportsChannel, it should be noted that SportsChannel had about 1/3 the households of ESPN at the time, while OLN/Versus is just under 80% of ESPN, and closer to parity with ESPN2, the primary venue for the NHL on ESPN. In reality, they’re very different beasts…

During Gary Bettman’s tenure, hockey night in canada expanded to a double-header, TSN launched in 1988, but Sportsnet launched in 1998. With expansions of TSN to new nights and SportsNet’s creation and the extra saturday game, the # of games a Canadian has access to has gone up massively during Bettman’s tenure. the NHL channel in canada also was created.

In the US, we’ve seen the creation of the Fox Sports network (and on cable and the sattelites, Center Ice), giving fans access to pretty much any game being played now if they want it. Bettman showed up as the league was headed back to ESPN after SportsChannel — but many of the games actually went to Fox Sports, which grew it’s regional audiences significantly, while ESPN stuck the league on ESPN2 which many cable systems fought to not carry (someone remind me how that’s better than not being seen on SportsChannel? oh, never mind).

The reality is — TV ratings in the states suck compared to football or baseball. While the raw rating number hasn’t moved all that much, the total viewership has, because there are so many more games on TV now than there were 15 or 20 years ago. And TV ratings sucked in the us in the 80′s, and 70′s, and 60′s, and… It’s just a fact of life, not some failure of Bettman. But if Bettman and the league haven’t been able to ratchet the share number up, they HAVE been very successful in making the sport much more available.

What’s that smell? Did somebody fart in here? The NHL isn’t really having attendance issues, the Americans are winning the war in Iraq and global warming is nothing to worry about.

Which, of course, tells you what you need to know about Tom’s rant. He’s already decided Bettman’s a failure, and let’s not let facts get in the way.

Let’s just forget that he’s taken a league from 22 teams to 30 teams, and from 14,000 tickets sold a game to just under 17,000; and according to Tom, this is somehow a failure. He’s overseen the move of three teams, he worked to prevent the move of other teams (most notably edmonton and calgary); his league significantly adopted much wider availability of the sport on TV (except in Chicago).

All of which sucks. At least, if you’re Tom.

Now, the league has challenges.

What league doesn’t? The NFL and NBA keeps having players arrested (and shot), baseball is embroiled in the steroids scandal. The NHL has Nashville and building problems in Long Island and Pittsburgh; the NFL has the Oakland Raiders and a massive building problem in San francisco. the NBA has had to move a number of franchises (VAncouver Grizzlies, anyway?) and is seeing a big pissing match in Seattle over a new building, and the wind-down of a similar problem in Portland with the Trailblazers and the Rose Garden (where they arrested Qyntel Woods for staging dog fights in the foyer of their mansion….)

If you step back and look in perspective, the reality is simple: there will always be franchises in a down cycle, leagues with bad owners (Chicago, ho!!!!), buildings needing upgrades of replacing, challenges to be met.

the NHL has met a lot of challenges very well. It has challenges left. This is real life. you can either look at it in perspective — or you can be Tom Benjamin, and focus only on what sucks. Or, if it doesn’t suck (like Bettman moving average attendance up by 3,000 per game), just ignore it and declare it sucks anyway…

My god, does ANYONE (other than Tom) want to return to the days of Ziegler and Eagleson? That sure sounds like what Tom wants, that’s for sure…

Hey, if nothing else, at least this union isn’t selling out its players to the league….

ESPN.com – NHL – Sources: Schedule likely to return to pre-lockout format

ESPN.com – NHL – Sources: Schedule likely to return to pre-lockout format:

The NHL’s board of governors will meet here Tuesday morning and sources indicate the league will put to bed the thorny of issue of its schedule by returning next season to the pre-lockout format.

Here’s hoping. They could, IMHO, pull games out of a hat and do better than the current schedule. Let us hope sanity prevails, and the NHL gets past this one so we can let the whining (mine included) die.

The things you discover….

Weekend plan:

1) take cats to vet for checkup

2) winter garden cleanup

3) put the rest of the christmas stuff back in storage

4) sharks game saturday night

5) go birding on sunday.

6) work on “outsider’s guides”

Weekend reality:

1) tear apart bedroom to find cats

2) take cats to vets for checkup

3) decide as long as bedroom is torn up it’s a good time to shampoo carpets

4) find out the carpet shampooer has died a hero (hey, it moved here with us from Mountain View….)

5) off to target for a new carpet shampooer

6) decide to watch the sharks from home — if we stay awake

7) we did (barely)

decide to stay home and take it easy, work on “outsider’s guide”

9) spend hours wandering around groups.google.com going “gee, did I really write THAT crap?”

10) afternoon nap

11) catch up on Mythbusters episodes

12) realize it’s time to crash…

How things change. Anyone who knows cats understands how the weekend went sideways. ours have this innate, psychic ability to know that the cat boxes have been pulled from storage, even if they’re not able to see that they’re moved. at some point, Archie will look at one or the other of us and canter off; we now know that he’s headed into hiding, and he usually grabs Manon and she runs off with him. If we’re lucky, it’s under the bed (if it’s not, it’s in the garage or storage room, and then we’re in big trouble)

extricating them involves tearing off all the bedsheets, then leaning the mattress and box springs against the wall with the door and closet closed and locked, and then grabbing the cats (who have welded their claws into the carpet) and stuff them in boxes. If we’re lucky, we can do this in about 20 minutes… We made the vets with 5 minutes to spare….

One of the things we discovered was that quiet, lovable Manon has another side to her. See, in the past, since Apple had christmas week off, we’d head down to my family in LA and board the animals, and the annual checkup and shots happened magically when we were gone. We’ve actually never been IN the room during a checkup since Manon’s kitten check. This year, with everything changed, we had to do the checkup ourselves.

Manon was mostly cooperative; until the vet went to take her temperature (I’ll stop a second while you ponder how cats get their temperatures taken; it’s not under the tongue). She just made it quite clear that wasn’t going to happen, and the vet smiled and declared it optional. More amusingly, when we checked her files, we found out teh ONLY time her temperature has been taken was her kitten checkup. Shots? Mildly annoying? Thermometer? not a chance.

Archie wasn’t happy, but he let us do the necessary.

Both are healthy, both are now up to date on shots and boosters. Manon is 14.5 pounds, and about a pound heavy. Archie’s 12+, and right on. All is well in the world.

And, as long as we have the bedroom torn apart, we can shampoo the carpets and get under the bed easily. No problem!

yeah, right. ohwell. I’ll finish the shampooing of the rest of the house next weekend…

I had a great time wandering through the old blog postings and the old USENET stuff today. wasn’t what I’d planned, but what the heck. Nice to run into some folks (virtually) that I haven’t seen in years. Interesting that I can go back 20+ years and document that I’ve averaged a posting a day that entire time. (note I said interesting; good? useful? productive? god knows…)

And we’re mostly up to date on TV again, except for the last two episodes of Battlestar, which I’d probably say was the best written thing on TV if it wasn’t for Dr. Who coming out of britain… just finished viewing 2nd season from Sci-Fi earlier in the week, and the way they ended year two blew me away. I’ll miss you, Rose Tyler. (now, how do they top this?)

What is love?

(January, 1985)

Google Groups: net.singles:

Actually, I think the question of ‘What is love’ is really two questions.

The unspoken side of it is what I will deal with first.

What isn’t Love

Love isn’t living happily ever after. Love isn’t a solution, a way of life,

or an end of problems. Love isn’t never having to say you’re sorry (the man

that said that should be shot, he obviously has never loved). Love isn’t a

do all, a cure all, a see all, a know all, or a remedy for baldness, hay

fever, or hormonal imbalances. Love isn’t music whenever she enters the

room, marriage ceremonies, sex, children, rings, orgasms, or vows. Love

isn’t well understood, well defined, or (it seems, unfortunately) properly

identified.

What is Love

Love is trust. Love is letting someone inside that wall, where all the deep

dark secrets of your life are. Love is allowing yourself to be weak when

you can’t be strong, to be vulernable when you can’t be untouchable, to

allow someone the opportunity to really dig deep into your psyche and hurt

you because you know they won’t. Love is caring, and sharing, and wanting

your hopes and fears to be known by others. Love is laughing at the good,

crying with the bad, commiserating with the sad. Love is being there, in

body, mind, spirit, thought, or being. Love is hard work– it doesn’t solve

problems, it creates new problems; problems that you want to solve, but

solve together instead of alone. Love doesn’t happen, love is nurtured,

like a fine rose. If not properly fed and watered, love dies, just as a

vine will die of neglect. Love doesn’t cling, but love is the glue that

binds two very different people into a single being that is nothing like

either, but a lot like both. Love is stroking the hard, grabbing the

fingers, smiling, laughing, crying. Love is looking into each others eyes,

and knowing, without speaking. Love is all the joys and pains and hope and

fears and successes and failures and pasts and futures of two people

congealed into a single energy that allows them to share with each other in

ways others can’t understand. Love is knowing that you have something that

can be freely given, but never have less of; shared, and multiplied; but

never, never taken, stolen, or destroyed.

I think, though, that the most important definition is this:

love is.

The USENET Olympics

Someday, some poor student working on a Ph.D. is going to try to explain USENET and how it operated (and didn’t) as part of their thesis; maybe they’ll be crazy enough to look at it in the wider context of the birth of the Internet in its current form, and whatever it decides to become.

I doubt there’s a better explanation for what it was like to live through USENET from start to finish than the USENET Olympics. Scott Forbes had this wonderful ability to both put things in perspective and make them horribly funny at the same time, without ever taking things very seriously. Sort of like Dave Berry, sort of like Scary Movie, finding the essence within the silly.

So running into this again today was truly a trip back to the past for me; for most of you, for all I know, this is going to be gibberish….

(and, in fact, I did actually use the phrase “they aren’t rules, they’re guidelines” in the last couple of weeks, and then laughed a bit. Much to the confusion of the people I was with at the time; I declined to explain then, because that was a rathole not worth travelling. But the answer is actually here in Scott’s piece…..)

Google Groups: rec.arts.sf.misc:

[Chuq and Peter are walking away from Lawrence Stadium on a

road made entirely of asbestos bricks.]

Peter:

>Isn’t there SOMETHING you can tell me about this place, other

>than the obvious “Wizard of Oz” parallels?

Chuq:

>You must find the answers for yourself. There is no other way.

Peter:

>Who or what is at the end of the road? Emerald City? The Wizard?

Chuq:

>It will all be clear to you when we reach the end of our quest.

Peter:

>Look, all I want to do is change the Guidelines. Why is –

[There is a terrifying high-pitched wail, trailing off into

frequencies beyond human hearing, and filled with terrible purpose.

A Rulewraith on a winged steed descends from the sky, blocking

the path before Peter and Chuq. The Rulewraith looks suspiciously

like Jose Martinez:]

Rulewraith:

>THE GUIDELINES ARE INFLEXIBLE! THEY MUST BE FOLLOWED TO THE

>EXACT LETTER WITHOUT ACCOMODATION! THEY MUST NOT BE BENT OR

>ALTERED OR MODIFIED! YOU WILL NEVER CHANGE THEM!

[Horrified by the evil in the words of the Rulewraith, Peter

stands frozen in sheer terror. Chuq calmly pulls a bucket of

water out of his cloak and throws it at the Rulewraith.]

Rulewraith:

>AIYEE! I’M MELTING!

[The Rulewraith dissolves, leaving an inky puddle. Peter stares

at the puddle, then stares at Chuq.]

Chuq:

>Please do not say those words again.