Why the Battle of Alberta isn’t what it used to be

2 Responses to “Why the Battle of Alberta isn’t what it used to be”

1. G T Baker writes:
   No. 1 — September 20th, 2007 at 8:36 am

   Good to hear from you Lucas.

   As far as it stands, rivalries might mean little to the players involved but no one cares about them anyways. Such interchangable parts have no real purpose outside of filling in lineup cards.

   The rivalry between Calgary and Edmonton is more about the fans and letting them enjoy an interesting atmosphere. Professional sports is for them and not atheletes. If it were, we could just shut the doors and offer the Iginlas and Sourays a pressure-free zone to play the game. But what fun would that be?

   Instead hockey teams build up the fantasy of rivalries so that fans will unquestionably pay $100-and-up at least eight times per season. Not a bad business plan.

   Lastly, I couldn´t disagree with you more on increasing the already restrictvie labour relations hockey players face today. Though they are highly compensated, the fact that they are unable to sign freely anywhere when they are “freeagents” merely speaks to how much of a lie sports can be.

   I love hockey and the NHL, so don´t get me wrong. But we need to realize that fans now, and maybe always did, care more for the jerseys (as ugly as some might be)athletes wear than the athletes themselves.

   Enjoy your day.

2. Lucas Aykroyd writes:
   No. 2 — September 21st, 2007 at 12:55 am

   George,

   Thanks for your thoughtful comments. The key point I wanted to make is that it’s more enjoyable for the fans if they can recognize and identify with the players, if you will, instead of being obliged to view them as “interchangeable parts,” which is what happens if your roster is constantly gutted due to free agent moves or trades.

   Personalities stick in your mind long after everyone’s forgotten how the power play performed in 1997-98.

   Now, certainly there are plenty of rivalries that have been more driven by media or team PR hype than what was taking place on the ice. (In Ken Dryden’s book The Game, he describes a 1979 Leafs-Canadiens game where Montreal easily prevails, and he concludes: “I’m angry–at the last two goals, at the game, at the Leafs, at the Gardens, at me; at people who all day have promised me a Leafs-Canadiens rivalry. There is no Leafs-Canadiens rivalry. It’s dead: the Leafs killed it. I feel duped.”)

   By the same token, ask the Oilers or Flames who played in those 1980’s Battle of Alberta games whether the rivalry was real for them on the ice or not. Even though most of them now no longer have a direct monetary or promotional incentive to say “Yes,” I’ll bet most of them will tell you that those games were real struggles.

   Obviously, most players who don’t hail from their particular NHL club’s city (Patrice Brisebois in Montreal, to take a somewhat masochistic example) or haven’t lived there for a long time (Trevor Linden in Vancouver) aren’t going to identify with their club and city the same way as ones who fall into the aforementioned categories. But that’s why I think it’s in the league’s best interest–to build up long-term fan interest–to create conditions where players often end up staying with the same club for years and building up an identification.

   Having said that, would I personally enjoy being told I had to work in X city? No, I wouldn’t. But as you pointed out, NHLers are highly compensated for what they do, and they aren’t solely restricted to making big money in the NHL. The money in Europe isn’t as big, but it was big enough, for instance, to lure Mark Giordano (a restricted free agent whose NHL rights still belong to Calgary) to the Russian Super League this year.

   I think if the league prioritizes protecting the health, safety, and long-term well-being of the players and enshrines that in a future CBA, that would go a long way toward making up for increased restrictions on player movement.

Leave a Reply