Who cares?

If a black audience specifically needs a black superstar to somehow get interested, we as hockey fans don’t need them anyways.  Because they’re not about the game anyways, just the color of that player.

Posted by Primis on 01/26/08 at 11:48 PM ET

What has Gomez done to attract the Latino crowd?  What has Park done to attract the Asian crowd?  Better yet, what has Crosby done to attract the white crowd?

The greatness of Tiger Woods is not racial no matter how many sports columnists seem to think so.  What drew so many new fans to the game of golf was that Tiger Woods was a phenomenal player, irregardless of race.  He was also marketed extremely competently, and I highly doubt the NHL knows how to do the same if there was a hockey player anywhere close to as dominating as Tiger Woods is to the PGA Tour.  How hard is that to understand, or does the columnist in the cited article just have no real clue why golf expanded?

Posted by Chad from Dallas on 01/27/08 at 04:26 AM ET

“You know, I don’t understand why you’re playing that white man’s game. So stupid.” For Gerald Coleman, a goaltending prospect in the Anaheim Ducks organization, those words still sting, like a high-stick to the forehead. At the time Coleman, an African-American who grew up in Chicago, was in the ninth grade, and he just told the high school basketball coach that he was picking hockey over hoops.

It doesn’t matter how much the league reaches out to young people, if their own community rips them to shreds for doing something unlike their peers, hockey will never make any headway.

That is the kind of attitude that makes me furious - the same attitude that young black kids (mostly boys) face when they have the audacity to speak proper English and get accused of “talking white”, or study and do well in school and are called out for “acting white”, as though the only way to be authentically black in their eyes is to dress like a hoodlum, talk like a hoodlum, be surly, lazy, don’t educate yourself, be sexually irresponsible and for goodness sake don’t have any ambitions to get a solid job and support yourself - that’s what white people do, not us.

How can you expect the kids to get ahead if this is the kind of “encouragement” they get?  I’m sure Coleman expected some disappointment from his coach if he was a good basketball player, but he also expected to be wished good luck.  Not to be kicked in the teeth by an ignorant, intolerant moron.

Kudos to him for keeping with it in the face of so much adult ignorance.

And if Tiger Woods was only a decent black golfer, with his race the only thing different about him from so many other golfers, he’d be a novelty act.  His appeal is that he is one of the best golfers in the history of the sport.  You can tell by his sponsorship deals who he appeals to - and it isn’t just “the black community” (although lumping together all blacks everywhere in the country is as stupid as lumping together all whites and expecting them to think and act the same way based on color.)

Stupid stereotypes. 

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 01/27/08 at 08:13 AM ET

I think some of the commenters above are minimizing the value of an African-American star. Actually, I don’t think a star will have a major effect, you probably need a superstar, and a superstar of a certain type. He would need to appeal to a certain extent to what young African American fans would be looking for. Maybe if a guy like Ovechkin or Kovalchuk, who appeals to young people in general for their skill, flair, attitude, and toughness, was black, they would fit the mold. I think it would absolutely draw more young African-American fans.

But just having an African American superstar (hate having to type out African American 18 times instead of black, but it’s to distinguish between Canadian and American) isn’t going to make a huge impact. Tiger Woods is on network TV all the time, and golf courses are now more accessible to African_Americans(for reasons financial and social) than they were years ago. The sport is still expensive, but not prohibitively so for many people (fans with disposable income are a good thing). It’s easy to be a casual viewing fan when it’s on every week. Hockey games are expensive to attend, have a low profile, and take a major commitment to “imitate” (rec hockey).

So because of those factors, it would probably take an African-American superstar with a certain skill set (flashy goalscorer), certain personality (less modest and a little more cocky, like Ovechkin) in a certain city and possibly on a winning team (to get some media attention). Hell maybe I’m starting to agree with you all.

But if these factors miraculously converged, or maybe there were several players who had some of those traits, I think it would increase the sport’s relevance, which would have somewhat of a chain reaction. Kids trying to take up the sport (as a player or viewer) wouldn’t be ridiculed to the same extent that they are today, and that would encourage African-American stars of the future.

This is true for most American cities to be honest. It’s not cool to be a hockey fan in too many places. It’s not a significant part of the watercooler discussion or the entertainment scene. So it can be a vicious cycle. Which I think I’m getting into, so I’ll stop while behind.

Posted by Bingo on 01/27/08 at 11:02 AM ET

@ Bingo:

That’s what I mean.  He can’t just be black, but he can’t be a goalie or a defenseman and he can’t score primarily through hard work.  He has to be flashy and score a lot.  He also can’t be modest and shy, but must be cocky and outgoing - lots of charisma and very articulate.  He has to be from the right city and maybe even from the right neighborhood.  He has to not hold any controversial stances and can’t get in any trouble, so his reputation must be free of any blemishes.  It would help if he was attractive so he could look good in photo-shoots, and if he has a really good life story and a photogenic family, that would help.  He has to play in the right market so he gets attention, and the team has to be good so he can get noticed in the playoffs, so he can’t play on a small-market team, or in Canada, or on a team without a lot of talent to surround him with, and they have to be good for several years so he doesn’t look like a flash in the pan, and he has to play in a lot of games so he can’t get hurt much…

And yet he is supposed to emerge, like Athena from the head of Zeus, out of a culture that doesn’t support him when young and his talent is developing.  There are so many requirements other than just “must be excellent at hockey” that I don’t see how such a paragon of hockey saviourhood could actually exist.

And as you said, it wouldn’t improve the standing of the league immediately but would take time.  What if this remarkable player suffered a broken leg in his third season, a concussion in his fourth, and was out of the game after parts of six seasons?  That doesn’t leave much time for him to light the hockey fire in non-white communities in a way that will last, no matter how good he is or how good the team is around him.

I don’t dispute that seeing someone who is similar to you might make you think about a sport differently - more Europeans now think the NHL is a realistic goal, more Americans now see that playing in college is a viable route to professional hockey, and more black faces might make a black kid think about playing hockey if he has the opportunity.  But if the primary response from his friends is “that’s a stupid sport”, why wouldn’t he just go along with the basketball they are playing so he can spend time with friends and talk the same sports language with them? It would be nice for the NHL to have a black superstar, but athletic talent doesn’t concentrate in very many people, and they can’t just wait for something that may not ever happen.

The accessibility is important, but unfortunately as long as the community attitude is against it kids will be discouraged from going into hockey.

I’m not asking everyone in the black community to embrace hockey, but if one of the young men (or women) wants to play hockey, instead of calling the sport stupid, have an open mind, wish them luck, and show up to the games if you can (even if you don’t understand the sport) to support a friend or family member who is trying hard to get better at something that is important to him.  Do your part to support him and maybe you can say you saw him play as a kid when he makes it.  Don’t run down something that is important to him.

(Geez, I’m wordy this morning.  Sorry about that.)

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 01/27/08 at 11:36 AM ET

Bingo, I’ve got to disagree with you.  Tiger Woods is all of those things you mentioned and more.  What has he done for golf in the same areas in which the article mentions?  Very little to nothing.

It’s true there was a spike in interest in golf in urban areas where the population is majority black, and it’s true there were some golf courses who used to not allow black members (shocking, isn’t it?) change their rules to allow black members because of Woods speaking about against it, but there are very few additional golfers from those same inner city areas Tiger Woods supposedly drew to the game. 

And it is primarily due to what Baroque wrote.  Why would a poor young black kid pick up donated golf clubs and ride a bus to the nearest golf course hoping to be let on for free when he can walk a few blocks and play basketball using someone else’s basketball, all the while knowing that’s where his friends are?  Why would an inner city youth scorn a jersey from a popular basketball player so he can wear a Nike golf shirt to school knowing full well he’ll be ridiculed?

Hockey has its advantages in contrast to golf.  Equipment can be and is donated, but rinks aren’t usually built in the inner city.  Why?  Because why would someone build a rink when no one would use it? 

Trevor Daley of the Dallas Stars continuously visits inner city schools and there is interest there, but it’s just interest that has not been cultivated into actual desire to play.  You might argue that’s because there is no black NHL superstar, but I would argue there is already one (Iginla) and there are far too many other reasons the battle for the inclusion goes far beyond an identifiable athlete. 

Lest we forget there are black hockey players in both professional and recreational leagues and it’s not just the inner cities that the NHL would like to sown captivate, but inner city whites, latinos, etc. also are not exactly the target market for future players either.  Does access to both a rink and equipment not matter any?  I’d argue it has far more to do with future hockey players than anything else, including race.  That’s a cop out and a way to describe hockey in most U.S. states as not a poor man’s game to play.

Posted by Chad from Dallas on 01/27/08 at 06:50 PM ET

Wow!  Preview is your friend, or should be, but alas it was not mine.

My point in the last paragraph is that hockey is not a poor man’s game, but neither is golf.  That’s why golf has never exactly taken off in the inner city, and I would never expect hockey to either for that very reason, not what color skin certain athletes have.

Posted by Chad from Dallas on 01/27/08 at 06:57 PM ET

I’ll repeat what I said in Mirtle’s blog…

In the “crappy part of Detroit,” there are rinks, and both the NHL’s Diversity program and the Red Wings help subsidize it, and OneGoal is now launching a pilot program to increase youth hockey participation throughout Michigan, both inside and outside the boundaries of Detroit.  We try to get kids playing hockey in this state, period.  Clark Park does a lot of work to get kids on the ice in the city itself. 

Look, all I know is something really simple. As a white kid who grew up in a working-class suburb with the Polish neighbours on both sides of me speaking Polish over the fence so we couldn’t understand them, feeling culturally excluded is always contextual, and for that matter…

I got into hockey because my best friend, who was a Korean kid, told me that I had to watch a Russian hockey player when there still was a Soviet Union. Joe Kim told me that I had to watch Sergei Fedorov, I did, and I’ve never looked back, cheering the “commie” Russians and IKEA-shopping Swedes to three Stanley Cups.

Maybe I’m just naive, but I’ve shared the rink with blacks, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, Arab-Americans, and as a goaltender, I’ll tell you that the same thing is true about every player I’ve faced--you never worry about their eyes or their face, because it’s their stick that does the talking. You read the stick, and you can read the player.

There are a lot of “white people” playing in the NHL, but I find it hard to believe that there isn’t a more diverse league out there, at least in terms of countries of origin, and our sport deals with people from very different backgrounds trying to overcome cultural differences and linguistic differences to come together and win. Isn’t that what counts?

Posted by George James Malik from South Lyon, MI on 01/28/08 at 01:23 AM ET

Actually what counts here is making money. That is the sole purpose of the TIME article and everyone worrying about it. The plea to get a “Tiger Woods” in hockey is so they have a marketable black athlete to generate cash for corporate economic expansion in ‘other’ demographics. that doesnt help kids play hockey - it helps people get rich. theres already kids of “other” races playing hockey and no one makes a big deal of it.

at the same time, hockey carries a major stigma among many people. just like one of the posters commented on how a black friend of his was being pressured to choose basketball over hockey as a form of “loyalty” and “allegiance”, the same thing happened to my brother in an all-white high school for an all-white basketball team. they pressured him into joining that because of his talents and he told them to “eat it” because he enjoyed hockey more as a sport overall and learned better lessons from hockey (sharing, leveling of ego, etc.) than his days in basketball. thats not to say that basketball doesnt teach those same lessons but it doesnt offer the “CHECK” to keep your opponents ego in check.

but lets face it, hockey isnt popular on ANY cultural level in the United States whether its racial or economic. most whites dont relate to “men on skates” when they can more closely relate to “men on their feet” that are playing culturally accepted games over the past 100+ years like golf, baseball, football, etc… youll hear the same stereotypical excuses over and over again on why they dont “understand” the sport, or how its too hard to follow a puck on TV, etc, etc..  its all bullcrap. the bottom line is that they dont relate to skating as a function in daily life. its alien.

secondly, hockey isnt accessible in many parts of the country on ANY level. do you know how hard it is to just “go out and play ice hockey” as a kid? you need certain weather conditions, specialized equipment (sticks, skates, skate sharpening, plus whatever else they feel necessary) and then FRIENDS who are going to play with you. what does it take to play football? a ball and some friends. how about basketball? a ball and pervasive hoops everywhere (so many that they arent even USED for years on end in my neighborhood. not to mention the unused ones in peoples yards.). baseball? a bat and a ball. soccer? a ball, and its the biggest sport in the world because of it. it crosses EVERY racial and economic line because it is an excessively simple sport that can be adapted to numerous environments. it is accessible.

golf is a whole different story but it overall appeals to the more adult male demographic who can waste money on exotic course prices and excessively technical equipment that is changing rapidly to generate a constant consumerism.

hockey is always going to be a fringe sport regardless of the Marketing Savior TIME wants.

whatever, Snoop Dogg and Willie O’Ree on youtube sum it all up at 2:13

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwhgYStuDLE

Posted by Death Metal Gary from Milwaukee on 02/07/08 at 07:21 AM ET