NHL’s uniform update: Not as happy as league would have you believe
In the four months I have been blogging, my single biggest-drawing post was a December article about Sharks players’ criticisms of the new NHL uniforms. Biggest-drawing post by far — four times as many views as my second-ranked post.
In that light, I’ll take note of the fact that the NHL invited a few media members to its offices in New York on Wednesday for a stage-managed sneak preview of its new uniforms, which will be unveiled for all next week at the All-Star Game. Based on this account, I’d say they invited media members they were pretty sure they could spin into the corner.
I wonder if Larry Brooks from the New York Post made it over after last weekend, when he disclosed a memo regarding the league’s hiring of a P.R. firm to manage the rollout, complete with talking points for “player(s) who have been identified as advocates and leaders in our transition.”
That’d be about in keeping with the NHL’s ideas on the matter — they’re going to go ahead and change the uniforms and make sure everyone knows how great they are, no matter how strongly their fan base feels in the other direction.
I’m guessing the Sharks’ spokesmen won’t be Kyle McLaren, Jonathan Cheechoo or Mark Smith, because in December I passed along their opinions, and the blogosphere took it from there. Virtually all of the reaction was rooted in abject disapproval of change and wishes of bodily harm to Gary Bettman.
(For a sampling of the disgust, click here and here and here.)
It’s becoming a nice little back-and-forth: For every league-planted or league-sponsored article telling us to chill out, there’s an independent one discussing how ridiculous the changes are and how opposed the players really are. For every Sidney Crosby with his marketing deal, there are more players who aren’t being paid endorsement fees criticizing the change.
I just keep coming back to one thing: Of all the NHL could do to improve itself, the sweaters are it?
(And by the way, while we’re on the subject and since I’m talking about hockey anyway: You can’t tell me, from watching Patrick Marleau’s fight last weekend, that fighting has no place in the NHL. That was one of the highlights and pivot points of the season.)
Hockey needs to find a happy medium between the big brawls of the 70’s and the dirty hit but no one can retaliate game of today. And they need to do it quick. The sports pundits who argue that the NHL would be more marketable if fighting were completely eliminated are the same people who still wouldn’t go to a game or cover it anyway even if it were, so the NHL should stop listening to them. NOW! Just my two cents.
This seems like a pretty transparent ploy to increase merchandising dollars. Similar to the new NBA ball in that way. Maybe the players were consulted after the decision was made, but I think if you’re literally going to change the look of the game, there has to be a reason. Where’s the market research that shows the fans saying the unis are old-fashioned? Or the study that says the players want a closer fitting jersey? The game has been around well over a century, and to change the old time jerseys like the Red Wings and Rangers is a slap in the face of that tradition.
I agree with Mepex. I understand the rules changes, which didn’t help a lot of individual players who were better suited for the “old” game, like Brett Hull. But overall, the league was looking to bring offence back to the game, increase speed and scoring. Plainly, the rules changes were instituted to resolve a problem. What was the problem with the old uniform “systems”? Tighter is safer? I always keep a roll of tape in my hockey bag…don’t pro’s have tape? I watched the All Star Game. Honestly, I didn’t see a HUGE difference in the look….so again…why the change? The more I think about it, the more it really does look like a marketing ploy. Be assured though that this will in fact go the way of the Olympic jersey and Cooper-alls.