Why I'm a Red Wings fan

Without a doubt the Russian Five solidified my Red Wings love. Their puck-possession style game really appealed to me. It reminded me of the way the Soviet Olympic teams and the 1980 U.S. team played. Papa Joe Chevalier on his sports talk show likened the Red Wings to the Soviets. He'd play the Empire Strikes Back theme as he talked about them. Yep, the Russian players really hooked me. As a casual NHL fan at the time I probably thought the Wings were the only team to have Russian players.

The start ...
So there I was in Spring 1995 - disillusioned with baseball because of the strike the previous season. I needed another sports fix. Baseball had started back, but I held a grudge.
I was sitting at a sports bar next to an attractive female co-worker with the Stanley Cup Finals on one of the many TVs.
"Who you for?" I asked.
"The Devils. All the way," she said. She was originally from New Jersey.
"What about you?" she asked.
"Probably the Red Wings," I said.
"Why?"
Why? Maybe at the particular time it was the contrarian in me. Maybe I had heard the Wings had a great team that year. Maybe I knew of the Miracle on Ice connection. Maybe it's because they represent the Midwest whereas the Devils were East Coast. Maybe it's because my grandfather, who I never knew, lived in Detroit. Maybe it's because the Wings represent Motown, and I'm a big fan of Motown music. Maybe, on a subliminal level, it was the winged-wheel logo.
Those are as good reasons as any other.

Contrarian theory
It can be in my nature to be contrary. At least from what some friends have said. Contrary to an attractive woman? Not likely, unless I didn't care or tried to be cool.

Great team theory
Though I can be contrary, maybe I tried hopping on the bandwagon that year. I can't recall what game Michelle and I were watching that night, but that would be telling.

Miracle on Ice theory
If I knew that there was a connection to the "Miracle on Ice" game and the Red Wings in Slava Fetisov, then that would have hooked me. I doubt I knew he had played with the Devils earlier that year.

Midwest theory
That's very likely. I have a great love for the Midwest. Not so much for the East Coast.

Grandfather theory
Also likely. Just looking for some kind of connection to root for a team. I had none to New Jersey.

Motown theory
For six years I worked in record store. I love music, and the Motown sound. Bon Jovi, no thanks, but I do like some Bruce Springsteen music. Hmm ... still not on the level that I do Motown.

Winged-wheel theory
This one didn't dawn on me until a few months ago. Maybe it's the similarity between the Indianapolis Motor Speedway logo and the Red Wings logo that worked on me in a subliminal way.

Anyway, who knows? Maybe it was a combination of all of them that night.
I picked Red Wings, and I have stuck with them for the most part.
While I was a Thrashers season ticket holder for three years, 1999 to 2003, I must confess, I cheered for them instead of the Wings in head-to-head match-ups.
At that time, the Thrashers were 1A, the Wings were 1B.
But that was then and this is now, and I won't waiver in my love for the Red Wings again.

So who's your team? And why?

Losing, Boycott and Selection Sunday

The Wings look like they're on another streak. This time a losing one. The Wings are having a hard time with Central Division teams this year. I don't know what's wrong with them. Sure they're still having injury problems, but so are the Avalanche, and they're doing very well.
Listening or watching hockey keeps me away from ESPN. So continuing the boycott was pretty easy. I also watched some college basketball on CBS. Speaking of which, the Hoosiers are on a losing streak too. It was a tough weekend. The Hoosiers also have a tough draw in the tournament, but I can understand it, given the losing streak and inconsistent play since Kelvin Sampson left.
Hopefully both my teams will turn around their recent fortunes.

ESPN Boycott Day 1

Note: As a result of traveling and slow, intermittent Internet access this is a day late.
On the drive into work I kept the radio off, I missed the Bob Picozzi college basketball scores, but that's about it. I realized if I had had the radio on and listening to 1000 from Chicago, an ESPN affiliate, I probably would have been mad not hearing the hockey scores. Even though locally I might have heard that the Blackhawks lost to the Red Wings the night before.
Anyway I turned on the radio at about Columbus, Indiana and picked up CKLW from Windsor, Ontario. Now it's not a sports specific radio station, but about every 20 minutes they give sports updates. I heard all the hockey scores - including NHL and OHL scores, heard the Pistons and Raptors scores, and also the Tigers split-squad scores.
As I got closer to Indy I turned the station to 1260 WNDE, a Fox Sports affiliate. To be honest it's not really good at providing the NHL scores. At least Fox, as an organization, doesn't seem as anti-hockey from the top down as ESPN is. Most if not all the regional Fox Sports networks showcase NHL teams too.
Oddly enough almost right after I posted my blog entry yesterday, I found an ESPN related topic on a Red Wings message board. A poster there posted that Tim Comlishaw mentioned the NHL on Around the Horn yesterday.
This was my response:
I don't care what ESPN says anymore. I'm officially boycotting everything ESPN except the website. ESPN is obviously run by hockey haters, from the top down. This mindset is ingrained in all of its employees. It's obvious to me that Comlishaw is just throwing hockey fans a bone, but in my opinion it's not enough. I hope the NHL never goes back to ESPN. I've decided I'd rather hunt to try to find it on the web, NBC, Versus, Fox Sports regional networks or any other network besides the world-wide entertainment leader.
I should edit that to read "ingrained in most of its employees" instead of all. I doubt John Buccigross or Barry Melrose hate hockey, but that's probably just two out of thousands.

Still seething

It's been a few days now, and just now I'm starting to calm down. Sunday the Anaheim Ducks visited the Detroit Red Wings for NBC's game of the week. If you didn't watch it, you've probably seen, heard or read about the low lights of the game Particularly Niklas Lidstrom's goal with about 40 seconds to go in the game that was waived off by one of the referees.
The game started OK for the Wings, but they played tentatively until the first goal. After that they played OK, but a couple of miscues led to two more goals for Ducks. The second goal was classic Chris Osgood ineffectiveness, giving up a goal from a shot near the blue line. The third Ducks goal was a total defensive breakdown. The Wings defensemen simply watched Kent Huskins skate by them and score the goal. No checking at all.
So the Wings should have made better plays at those times
Still it's hard to deny just how horrible referee Dan O'Halloran's call, waiving off Lidstrom's goal, was. It's inexcusable!
This season, Red Wings fans are familiar with seeing goals waived off because Tomas Holmstrom is doing his job around the crease, causing havoc for the opposing goalie. The one Sunday was probably about the seventh one I've seen this year. Some were called correctly, some weren't. Clearly, Sunday's waive off was wrong. It's not just Wings fans who upset about this. Prominent national hockey writers Michael Farber and Damian Cox feel the same.

In his article Monday Farber said Sundays refs weren't ready for prime time.

The question, forgetting any motives for NBC's munificence, is: if the network can have the best game, can the NHL have "flex" referees.

Chris Rooney and Dan O'Halloran were entrusted with the Ducks - Red Wings game in Detroit on Sunday, a match that the network homed in on after immediately bailing on Penguins - Flyers as soon as Sidney Crosby sprained his ankle. Good call.

NBC got everything it wanted: a stirring 3-2 Ducks win in a game redolent of the playoffs in front of a full house, finally, at Joe Louis Arena.

Unfortunately, Rooney and O'Halloran didn't seem up to the challenge. O'Halloran waved off Nick Lidstrom's apparent tying goal with 41 seconds left because teammate Tomas Holmstrom supposedly interfered with Ducks goalie J-S Giguère. Now, Holmstrom was born with a GPS in his cerebellum. He almost never puts his skates in the blue paint of the crease. Nor did he do it this time. According to replays, he didn't jostle the goalie, either.

O'Halloran blew the whistle and made one of those "incidental contact" decisions, the single most vexing option in the rulebook. (Note to NHL: If there is truly goalie interference, call the two-minute minor and disallow the goal. If it isn't, then let them play. The "incidental contact" rule is absurd.)

In a league that is contemplating all kinds of out-of-the-box changes to increase goal scoring, a ref took away what appeared to be a perfectly legitimate goal -- two, in fact, counting the one that would have been scored in overtime or awarded for the penalty shootout.

There were less egregious examples of misjudgment -- Anaheim's Chris Kunitz escaped punishment for punching Mikael Samuelsson -- but NBC analysts Ed Olczyk and Pierre McGuire, neither of whom are known as ref bashers, were tough on the striped shirts. In a post-game email to On the Fly, Stephen Walkom, director of officiating, wrote that both O'Halloran and Rooney "have worked well" this season and that the call on Lidstrom's disallowed goal "made in real time demonstrated real focus and was truly an exceptional call."

Everyone should have a boss as loyal as Walkom.

Anyway, while Rooney and O'Halloran might be top tier officials this season, the NHL should settle for nothing less than its top two referees for the game of the week. That, of course, doesn't preclude an officiating misstep -- or "an exceptional call" if you believe the NHL gospel -- but it gives NBC and the league their best chance of the refs not becoming part of the national story.

Cox said O'Halloran was dead wrong.

The NHL is very good at disciplining and suspending its players.

Someday, it would be nice to see them apply some performance standards to their on-ice officials outside of firing the ones they don't like at the end of the season.

Yesterday afternoon, the Red Wings and Ducks went at it in an humdinger of a hockey game, won 3-2 by Anaheim. The crime, however, was that the Wings clearly scored in the final minute of play on a Nicklas Lidstrom shot from the point that beat J.S. Giguere but had it incorrectly waved off by veteran official Dan O'Halloran.

O'Halloran thought he saw Tomas Holmstrom interfering with Giguere, and whistled incidental contact, with no penalty. Holmstrom, however, was clearly outside the blue paint with his back to the Anaheim goalie, setting up a perfect screen, and Giguere moved out and bumped the Detroit player as the puck went by him.

It was particularly strange given that Anaheim, not Detroit, is one of the most notorious crease-crashing teams in the NHL, and that there was an extraordinary amount of obvious interference by defencemen on forecheckers let go in the game, the same kind of interfererence that the league is permitting to increase in virtually every game these days.

If O'Halloran had wanted to call interference, he had a dozen incidents during the contest for which he could have raised his arm rather than on a play on which interference actually didn't occur.

Detroit made a great play to set up the game-tying shot, and Holmstrom did a great job NOT to interfere with Giguere.

But O'Halloran took it away. Totally blew the call.

The NBA has allowed several games to be replayed, including one this year.

Wouldn't you love to see the NHL, in this case, rule the goal should have stood and force the two teams to finish the game at a later date? Or to suspend O'Halloran for making such a grievous error?

Don't bet on either scenario unfolding, and no one's going to lose sleep because the mighty Red Wings didn't get a point yesterday.

But make no mistake about it - they got screwed.

If you don't believe them, see for yourself.

Not in the crease.


Not in the crease.


Not in the crease.


In the crease, but before the shot.


Not in the crease.


Not in the crease, puck in the net.


Not in the crease, puck in the net.


Definitely a horrible call. Worst I've seen in years.
Two more points J.S. Giguere ran into Holmstrom, and because he did he was out of position to make the save.

Hockey in SoIn

Last night, I wanted to watch the Red Wings - Kings game. Since it wasn't on Versus, I called around to sports bars, and none of them had Center Ice. From the sound of things I doubt the people knew. They just guesstimated to get off the phone.
Then I have my sister call around, and since I wasn't getting anywhere with Center Ice, I tell her to ask if they have the Fox Sports regional networks.
One was willing to order Fox Sports Detroit for us. Success! Or at least I think.
Drove there and I explain to the waitress my situation that the manager ordered the game, etc.
"So if you could have one of the TV turned to the game I'd appreciate it."
Waitress comes back and says it's already on one TV in back. Cool.
So we move and there's Larry Murphy with some pre-game chatter. Couldn't hear it though, but that's OK. I'm at a bar and ready to watch the game. Order Guinness and food, 7:30 rolls around, and bam! The picture is gone! Black screen with some instructions on how to order the station.
Needless to say I'm disappointed, but the assistant manager looks for it on other stations and ... nothing.
We finish our beer and food and leave.

All I got to say is it's tough being an NHL fan in Indiana. I'm working on moving farther north.

A few months ago I was out and about and looking for the Red Wings - Blues game on Versus. This is what happened.

Visited a local sports bar tonight and I asked, "Do you have Versus?"
The bartender was like "What!?"
"You know Versus, formerly known as OLN - Outdoor Life Network. I want to watch the hockey game tonight."
"I don't know. I'll ask the manager."
At this point I was flabbergasted. Granted I'm in southern Indiana, but I still expected a sports bar to know about Versus. I ordered a Guinness, surprised the bar had that.
After about five minutes two bartenders and a manager still couldn't find it. The DirectTV menu they had said Versus was on 608. They turned it to 608 and nothing! That was a major disappointment on my part. So even with my Guinness just three quarters finished I settle up and leave.
I drive to another recommended sports bar. It was so shady looking, I just kept on driving. While driving though I was able to find the St. Louis broadcast on KMOX; that was a plus.
So I head to a pizza place. At the bar everybody's watching a basketball game, like at the first bar.
Anyway I ask if the bartender could turn one of the TVs to Versus.
"What's Versus?!"
I was slack jawed!
Again I explain what Versus is, it's former name, and probable number, 608.
The bartender plugs in 608 again, and again, nothing! She searches and finds Versus on 603! Must've been a typo.

So while I loathe ESPN, and its coverage and treatment of the NHL, I'm ready to concede, at least some NHL games should be on the four-letter network. It would be far easier for die-hard fans and casual fans to find it. Still I want games on Versus too, since it only shows games two nights per week.