There's a common joke/completely-accurate-observation that when you see that a celebrity is trending on social media for the first time in a while, it gives an instant sense of dread. This is because there are only two likely reasons for the trending: the celebrity has died, or some despicable past behaviour has come to light. So you find yourself in the weird situation of being relieved to find that the beloved star is dead.
A large part of Canada went through a variation on this process earlier this week, when — without warning — the CN Tower was trending on Twitter.
(Shame on my phone's Amero-centric autocomplete for suggesting CNN but not CN, and then not suggesting "tower" as the next word after CN. At least it didn't change "Amero-centric" to "Amero-centeric".)
Assuming the tower doesn't have some skeletons in its closet, people jumped to the “death” possibility, which would be rather alarming, as the demise of the tower would take a number of people with it. Personality, I didn't worry, as there are a lot of less-scary reasons the tower could be tending. A change in ownership, a really great practical joke on the EdgeWalk, or the return of the Tour of the Universe ride (fingers crossed.)
But here's the weird thing: as far as anyone can tell, it was nothing. There was just a random swell of people mentioning the tower on Twitter, and that got it on to the list of tending topics on a slow news day. Toronto being Toronto, this was more than enough encouragement to get them Tweeting about their city. And the Rest of the World being the Rest of the World, people said, hey, I haven't thought about Toronto in years, let's post that picture from our visit eight years ago. Then add in Drake fans finally understanding the Views album cover. That pushed it further up the trending charts, which lead to all the people tweeting about how worried they were that it was trending, and it was trending even more. And Bam!: Twitter inception.
So it wasn't really anything important, but it was a good example of the fickleness of the automated systems that bring things to our attention in the modern world.
Showing posts with label Toronto. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Toronto. Show all posts
Saturday, August 17, 2019
Sunday, February 11, 2018
Das Boo
It's an occasional custom in hockey for fans to boo a hated player whenever he touches the puck. There are numerous reasons why this can happen. Usually it's because the target has committed some sort of dirty play against a member of the home team.
But often, the booing has a mob-mentality to it that waters down its meaning. Years ago, Toronto Maple Leafs captain Mats Sundin was suspended for throwing a stick into the stands. Later, Ottawa captain Daniel Alfredsson broke his stick mid-play, and jokingly mimed throwing it into the stands. Leaf fans took offense, and gave Alfredsson the booing treatment for years to come. For one thing, the original act wasn't really offensive. But also, hockey is a sport where grave injustices are often left to stand, and booing is the only recourse for fans. It's depressing to think that the punishment given to an unstable cheap-shot artist is the same one given to a guy who did a mildly insulting joke.
Even more unfair is when the crowd turns on a member of the home team. One of the most embarrassing experiences I've had as a sports fan was when the Leafs "fans" decided veteran defenceman Larry Murphy was so personally responsible for the team's woes that they began booing him every time he touched the puck. It was one of the great justices of the game that he was traded to Detroit just in time to win a couple of Stanley Cups.
And this week, the Leaf faithful extended the booing treatment to Nashville's star defenceman PK Subban. Of course, that was a little awkward, booing a guy who's not known for dirty play, and happens to be the only black guy on the ice. To be fair, there's never been a clear, irrefutable explanation for why many people don't like Subban. He may be a different race than most hockey players, but he also differs in other ways: he's a very outgoing individual in a sport that usually values people who fit in. In the past, I've argued that is actually an interaction between the two causes: people cast an especially critical eye towards him because he's of a different race.
So was there an element of racism in the fans' booing? We can't say definitively, so instead, I'd like to look at a different question, which may also say some disturbing things about the sport's culture. I may think there is a racial component to the hockey culture's treatment of Subban, but for the sake of argument, let's say I'm wrong. Let's say this is nothing to do with race. That still leaves the question: why do so many people in hockey hate PK Subban?
Like I said, he's not known for dirty play. He also seems quite friendly in interviews, and is famous for being very charitable. So the only way left to explain it is his personality. Or more specifically, we're talking about the way he expresses it. The hockey world is okay with players like Brent Burns, who are eccentric in ways that fit the hockey culture better, with beards and good-natured oafishness. But charismatic fashionistas are not welcome.
This could be a problem for the sport in the future. For all its dominance in Canada, you can see that the powers that be in hockey are worried, given how many ad campaigns are trying to encourage kids and their patents to get into the sport.
If Subban's treatment is racist, that's bad news for these recruitment drives. We're talking about a sport that's hugely white, in a country that's becoming less so. It's clear that hockey's long-term health requires getting more diverse. But if Subban's treatment is not racist, that may be less bad morally, but it would actually be worse for the sport. If kids don't perceive the rejection as being about colour, they'll see it as being about personality. The lesson will be that if you want to be your own person, then you're not welcome here. To generations that will grow up with more and more avenues of self expression, we'll be selling a sport where your individuality may only be expressed through degrees of aggression.
But often, the booing has a mob-mentality to it that waters down its meaning. Years ago, Toronto Maple Leafs captain Mats Sundin was suspended for throwing a stick into the stands. Later, Ottawa captain Daniel Alfredsson broke his stick mid-play, and jokingly mimed throwing it into the stands. Leaf fans took offense, and gave Alfredsson the booing treatment for years to come. For one thing, the original act wasn't really offensive. But also, hockey is a sport where grave injustices are often left to stand, and booing is the only recourse for fans. It's depressing to think that the punishment given to an unstable cheap-shot artist is the same one given to a guy who did a mildly insulting joke.
Even more unfair is when the crowd turns on a member of the home team. One of the most embarrassing experiences I've had as a sports fan was when the Leafs "fans" decided veteran defenceman Larry Murphy was so personally responsible for the team's woes that they began booing him every time he touched the puck. It was one of the great justices of the game that he was traded to Detroit just in time to win a couple of Stanley Cups.
And this week, the Leaf faithful extended the booing treatment to Nashville's star defenceman PK Subban. Of course, that was a little awkward, booing a guy who's not known for dirty play, and happens to be the only black guy on the ice. To be fair, there's never been a clear, irrefutable explanation for why many people don't like Subban. He may be a different race than most hockey players, but he also differs in other ways: he's a very outgoing individual in a sport that usually values people who fit in. In the past, I've argued that is actually an interaction between the two causes: people cast an especially critical eye towards him because he's of a different race.
So was there an element of racism in the fans' booing? We can't say definitively, so instead, I'd like to look at a different question, which may also say some disturbing things about the sport's culture. I may think there is a racial component to the hockey culture's treatment of Subban, but for the sake of argument, let's say I'm wrong. Let's say this is nothing to do with race. That still leaves the question: why do so many people in hockey hate PK Subban?
Like I said, he's not known for dirty play. He also seems quite friendly in interviews, and is famous for being very charitable. So the only way left to explain it is his personality. Or more specifically, we're talking about the way he expresses it. The hockey world is okay with players like Brent Burns, who are eccentric in ways that fit the hockey culture better, with beards and good-natured oafishness. But charismatic fashionistas are not welcome.
This could be a problem for the sport in the future. For all its dominance in Canada, you can see that the powers that be in hockey are worried, given how many ad campaigns are trying to encourage kids and their patents to get into the sport.
If Subban's treatment is racist, that's bad news for these recruitment drives. We're talking about a sport that's hugely white, in a country that's becoming less so. It's clear that hockey's long-term health requires getting more diverse. But if Subban's treatment is not racist, that may be less bad morally, but it would actually be worse for the sport. If kids don't perceive the rejection as being about colour, they'll see it as being about personality. The lesson will be that if you want to be your own person, then you're not welcome here. To generations that will grow up with more and more avenues of self expression, we'll be selling a sport where your individuality may only be expressed through degrees of aggression.
Saturday, September 10, 2016
My Tiff With TIFF
It's time for the Toronto International Film Festival, or TIFF. I kind of dread hearing about it. Sure, I like movies, and I'm proud that we've got one of the world's biggest festivals here in Canada. What I hate is how the Canadian media goes all star-struck and treats it like a big celebrity get together.
Yes, there are a lot of celebrities in town, but the whole event is about movies, so that should be the focus of the reporting, not whether you saw Leo on the red carpet. And I realize that there are plenty of people out there who want to hear about celebrities, but we've created specialized outlets for those people. They aren't watching the news I'm watching, they're watching a bunch of celebrity-focused news programs I could try recounting the names of, but won't for fear of embarrassing myself.
So CBC News Network shouldn't be excitedly reporting celebrity sightings first and movie news second, since the viewership has different priorities. If got really cared about fame, you shouldn't be working at the national broadcaster, you should have sold your soul and gone to work at CTV.
Yes, there are a lot of celebrities in town, but the whole event is about movies, so that should be the focus of the reporting, not whether you saw Leo on the red carpet. And I realize that there are plenty of people out there who want to hear about celebrities, but we've created specialized outlets for those people. They aren't watching the news I'm watching, they're watching a bunch of celebrity-focused news programs I could try recounting the names of, but won't for fear of embarrassing myself.
So CBC News Network shouldn't be excitedly reporting celebrity sightings first and movie news second, since the viewership has different priorities. If got really cared about fame, you shouldn't be working at the national broadcaster, you should have sold your soul and gone to work at CTV.
Monday, July 4, 2016
Pride And Prejudice
Toronto's annual Pride parade was this weekend, and it made news for a few reasons. One was that it was the first one attended by a sitting Prime Minister. Which brings up:
The Prime Minister went to a pride parade, wearing a pink shirt, and someone took this photo of him, and it didn't end his career.
Truth is, it will probably help his career; in addition to standing up for tolerance, you know that some political opponent is going to try to score points with the homophobes by bringing this up in the future, with disastrous results for themselves.
But the other big story was that Toronto's chapter of Black Lives Matter (BLM) held up the parade with a protest. They had a variety of demands, many of which were uncontroversial measures to help LGBT people of colour, but the most talked-about is that the police be excluded from future Pride parades. Oh, speaking of which:
Anyway, this protest took many of us by surprise. For one thing, many people were displeased with the idea of excluding someone from an event that's built around inclusion. But the other is that it seems as though two oppressed minorities are fighting each other.
Though it's sad to see that, I can understand the dynamics behind it. We may think of Gay Rights as the new kid on the activist block, but it's actually been wildly successful, and in many ways it's passed other causes in mainstream acceptance. Look at it this way: which is going to cause a scared white suburbanite cross to the other side of the street faster: a black man, or a gay man. I'm kidding of course: the suburbanite wouldn't be walking down the street. But my point is, it's not too surprising that those fighting racism might see the Pride parade as part of an establishment they aren't part of, rather than a fellow campaigner for rights.
I may understand how the thinking happens here, but I really disagree with it: Normally I've supported Black Lives Matter. I do think police have made mistakes. But there seems to be a big philosophical difference between criticizing police and demonizing them. Or to put it another way, disliking some of their actions does not mean disliking them. It's particularly unfortunate because the police participation in Pride is an example of them trying to reach out and be part of the community, (with a community they once antagonized) which is the sort of attitude that should be encouraged.
That's why this seems like a watershed moment. There are a lot of progressive-minded people like myself who were on board with BLM are now looking for the exits. It's unfortunate because they still have a lot to accomplish, so I hope the grassroots ask whether this is really the direction they want to go.
Things The Teenage Me Would Never Have Believed About Life In The Future, #33
The Prime Minister went to a pride parade, wearing a pink shirt, and someone took this photo of him, and it didn't end his career.
Truth is, it will probably help his career; in addition to standing up for tolerance, you know that some political opponent is going to try to score points with the homophobes by bringing this up in the future, with disastrous results for themselves.
But the other big story was that Toronto's chapter of Black Lives Matter (BLM) held up the parade with a protest. They had a variety of demands, many of which were uncontroversial measures to help LGBT people of colour, but the most talked-about is that the police be excluded from future Pride parades. Oh, speaking of which:
Things The Teenage Me Would Never Have Believed About Life In The Future, #33.5
It's just assumed that police forces have floats in Pride parades.Anyway, this protest took many of us by surprise. For one thing, many people were displeased with the idea of excluding someone from an event that's built around inclusion. But the other is that it seems as though two oppressed minorities are fighting each other.
Though it's sad to see that, I can understand the dynamics behind it. We may think of Gay Rights as the new kid on the activist block, but it's actually been wildly successful, and in many ways it's passed other causes in mainstream acceptance. Look at it this way: which is going to cause a scared white suburbanite cross to the other side of the street faster: a black man, or a gay man. I'm kidding of course: the suburbanite wouldn't be walking down the street. But my point is, it's not too surprising that those fighting racism might see the Pride parade as part of an establishment they aren't part of, rather than a fellow campaigner for rights.
I may understand how the thinking happens here, but I really disagree with it: Normally I've supported Black Lives Matter. I do think police have made mistakes. But there seems to be a big philosophical difference between criticizing police and demonizing them. Or to put it another way, disliking some of their actions does not mean disliking them. It's particularly unfortunate because the police participation in Pride is an example of them trying to reach out and be part of the community, (with a community they once antagonized) which is the sort of attitude that should be encouraged.
That's why this seems like a watershed moment. There are a lot of progressive-minded people like myself who were on board with BLM are now looking for the exits. It's unfortunate because they still have a lot to accomplish, so I hope the grassroots ask whether this is really the direction they want to go.
Thursday, May 26, 2016
Sports Inversion
A few years ago, I remember a Toronto sports journalist ask the question, what is the second most popular team in the city? The Leafs were far and away the most popular, while the Jays were still in their generation-long post-World-Series doldrums. The Raptors were post-Vinsanity, pre-We-The-North, and Toronto FC was only just getting started.
Now things have changed: the Leafs are still pretty popular, but their deliberate rebuilding process has taken their fan support off the boil. The Jays' fan support of the 80's and 90's have been reawakened. And Raptor fanaticism during their recent success has been a shock to the city and the NBA alike. Even Toronto FC finally has success and star power. Oh, and I'm pretty sure the Argos are still in business too.
It's interesting, because it's always seemed like the Leafs' fandom is a different animal from Toronto's other teams. Yes, many of the fans of all these teams are the same people. But there seems to be a different culture to them. Anecdotally, the Leaf fans are whiter and richer, and I think maler. But there's also the way the media looks at it. It's been clear for the last twenty years or so that hockey coverage comes first, then everything else is a second-class citizen.
The is important to me, because of where I fit in to it. Demographically, I fit in with the hard core Leaf fans. Yet, that's not where my greatest passion lies. I grew up during the darkest years of the Harold Ballard era. Back then the Leafs were bad year-in, year-out. It was actually worse than their recent futility, since there wasn't even the hope of getting better. You just accepted that they were awful and always would be. It didn't help that this was in the era when you only got one or two televised games a week, so the only hockey we could get were the pathetic Leafs losing to slightly-less pathetic Norris Division rivals. Meanwhile, tremendous Oiler and Islander teams were making history, but we could only dream about what their games were like. So I came to resent the Leafs.
But eventually Ballard died, and some clever trades got them in contention. They had some great runs in the playoffs, the fan base was re energized, and I got caught up cheering for them along with most people in the area. So I've been a fan since, but I don't have the same deep connection that many others have. I'd like to see them succeed - which would be the basic definition of a fan - but I wouldn't be that torn-up if they didn't. A few years ago, it occurred to me that a Leafs cup win would be a huge cultural force; I've complained in the past about the ever-increasing legend of the Summit Series, but a Leafs cup win would be ten times that. So I asked myself, would that be worth it? And I said, no, I don't think watching the Leafs win the cup would be worth having to spend the rest of my life listening to Leaf fans go on about how that was the greatest moment in Canadian history.
Anyway, it's a bit of a mystery to me why Leaf Nation is so passionate today. You'd think they'd have a "lost generation" of jaded fans like myself. And yet, the fan base has seemed to become more fanatical over time. I don't understand why, but Canadian hockey fandom in general, and the Leafs in particular, has seemed stronger in spite of mediocre play and more sports options
Today, a large part of why I want the Leafs to win is because they've finally taken my advice of tearing the team down and rebuilding. It'll be great to shove that in the face of all the folks who eternally want them to trade for veteran enforcers for a gritty playoff run from the eighth seed. But really, I'd list the Blue Jays as my favourite team. Having watched Roy Howell while I was a toddler in the crappy outfield seats in Exhibition Stadium, I've literally grown up with the team. And I've become a Raptors fan, since they've become a relief from the all-hockey-all-winter nature of Canadian sports media. So they'd go second, followed by Toronto FC. Then I'd put the Leafs after that.
So I often feel like a freak in southern Ontario sports, a fan of everybody else, then the Leafs, while most seem to like the Leafs, then everybody else. But now with the recent phenomena of the Raptors' "Jurassic Park," Canadian media's attention has been piqued, and they've been working a little harder to figure out who these people are, and why they care so much about this team that hasn't had much success. And the Blue Jays have shown themselves to be eminently marketable, with support across the country. For once, it's the golden age of non-hockey fandom in Canada. Welcome to the bandwagon, everyone!
Now things have changed: the Leafs are still pretty popular, but their deliberate rebuilding process has taken their fan support off the boil. The Jays' fan support of the 80's and 90's have been reawakened. And Raptor fanaticism during their recent success has been a shock to the city and the NBA alike. Even Toronto FC finally has success and star power. Oh, and I'm pretty sure the Argos are still in business too.
It's interesting, because it's always seemed like the Leafs' fandom is a different animal from Toronto's other teams. Yes, many of the fans of all these teams are the same people. But there seems to be a different culture to them. Anecdotally, the Leaf fans are whiter and richer, and I think maler. But there's also the way the media looks at it. It's been clear for the last twenty years or so that hockey coverage comes first, then everything else is a second-class citizen.
The is important to me, because of where I fit in to it. Demographically, I fit in with the hard core Leaf fans. Yet, that's not where my greatest passion lies. I grew up during the darkest years of the Harold Ballard era. Back then the Leafs were bad year-in, year-out. It was actually worse than their recent futility, since there wasn't even the hope of getting better. You just accepted that they were awful and always would be. It didn't help that this was in the era when you only got one or two televised games a week, so the only hockey we could get were the pathetic Leafs losing to slightly-less pathetic Norris Division rivals. Meanwhile, tremendous Oiler and Islander teams were making history, but we could only dream about what their games were like. So I came to resent the Leafs.
But eventually Ballard died, and some clever trades got them in contention. They had some great runs in the playoffs, the fan base was re energized, and I got caught up cheering for them along with most people in the area. So I've been a fan since, but I don't have the same deep connection that many others have. I'd like to see them succeed - which would be the basic definition of a fan - but I wouldn't be that torn-up if they didn't. A few years ago, it occurred to me that a Leafs cup win would be a huge cultural force; I've complained in the past about the ever-increasing legend of the Summit Series, but a Leafs cup win would be ten times that. So I asked myself, would that be worth it? And I said, no, I don't think watching the Leafs win the cup would be worth having to spend the rest of my life listening to Leaf fans go on about how that was the greatest moment in Canadian history.
Anyway, it's a bit of a mystery to me why Leaf Nation is so passionate today. You'd think they'd have a "lost generation" of jaded fans like myself. And yet, the fan base has seemed to become more fanatical over time. I don't understand why, but Canadian hockey fandom in general, and the Leafs in particular, has seemed stronger in spite of mediocre play and more sports options
Today, a large part of why I want the Leafs to win is because they've finally taken my advice of tearing the team down and rebuilding. It'll be great to shove that in the face of all the folks who eternally want them to trade for veteran enforcers for a gritty playoff run from the eighth seed. But really, I'd list the Blue Jays as my favourite team. Having watched Roy Howell while I was a toddler in the crappy outfield seats in Exhibition Stadium, I've literally grown up with the team. And I've become a Raptors fan, since they've become a relief from the all-hockey-all-winter nature of Canadian sports media. So they'd go second, followed by Toronto FC. Then I'd put the Leafs after that.
So I often feel like a freak in southern Ontario sports, a fan of everybody else, then the Leafs, while most seem to like the Leafs, then everybody else. But now with the recent phenomena of the Raptors' "Jurassic Park," Canadian media's attention has been piqued, and they've been working a little harder to figure out who these people are, and why they care so much about this team that hasn't had much success. And the Blue Jays have shown themselves to be eminently marketable, with support across the country. For once, it's the golden age of non-hockey fandom in Canada. Welcome to the bandwagon, everyone!
Monday, May 16, 2016
Suppose They Gave A Brawl And Nobody Watched
This weekend, the Toronto Blue Jays found themselves at the centre of attention of the baseball world. Combined with their playoff run last fall, that's twice in the last year. Or twice in the last twenty years, if we're being honest. Only this time, the team wouldn't be nearly as happy with what got them the attention. To review:
So since then, the sports world in these parts has been debating the ethics of sports fighting and vengeance. Actually, people have been discussing it since the original bat flip. Some baseball old-timers criticized the flip, though many have been defending it on the grounds that:
To me, this is another example of how sports has weird ideas about what is and is not acceptable. I remember a psychology prof pointing this out once: in hockey, fighting is acceptable, and even celebrated. But try spitting on someone in a hockey game and it's crimes against humanity.
Baseball, as the sport that's been professional the longest, seems to have far stranger and more arbitrary rules of behaviour. If someone hits a home run, and then jogs around the bases a little too slowly, there'll be hell to pay, since it might hurt someone's feelings. But it's also accepted that the pitcher may hit the next batter out of frustration.
Normally I hold up hockey as the ultimate example of a sport with strange and nonsensical accepted behaviours, but Baseball has plenty of foibles that could do with some revisiting too. Hard slides and batter-hitting and other physically-dangerous actions are being equated with actions considered offensive just because someone in the 1800's didn't like it. And strangely, anyone questioning the morality of the fighting and other physical actions is told to suck it up, it's a man's game etc. You essentially have to suppress your emotions, except in things like bat flips, which people probably wouldn't be angered by if they weren't told to be angered by it.
- In last year's playoffs, the Jays' Jose Bautista hit a decisive home run, leading the team to a comeback win against the Texas Rangers. After hitting the home run, he watched the ball go, then flipped his bat away emphatically before beginning the ceremonial jog around the bases. Though the batflip has been celebrated among Jays fans, other baseball fans thought it was a violation of the sport's etiquette.
- On Sunday, the Blue Jays were playing in Texas, and by a foible of the schedule, it was the last time the two teams would play this season. When Bautista batted late in the game, he was hit by the pitch, seemingly in retribution.
- Miffed at this, Bautista took out his frustration a few batters later by sliding hard into second base, trying to upend second baseman Rougned Odor. Odor took issue with this, the two started arguing, and Odor punched Bautista hard in the face. This led to a bench-clearing brawl.
So since then, the sports world in these parts has been debating the ethics of sports fighting and vengeance. Actually, people have been discussing it since the original bat flip. Some baseball old-timers criticized the flip, though many have been defending it on the grounds that:
- This was a big emotional moment, and you have to judge it by the context (keep in mind that the home run capped-off a bizarre inning that included errors, lead-changes, obscure rules, arguments, and nearly a riot.
- You have to change with the times, people are more showy than they once were. You know, hip-hop and all that.
To me, this is another example of how sports has weird ideas about what is and is not acceptable. I remember a psychology prof pointing this out once: in hockey, fighting is acceptable, and even celebrated. But try spitting on someone in a hockey game and it's crimes against humanity.
Baseball, as the sport that's been professional the longest, seems to have far stranger and more arbitrary rules of behaviour. If someone hits a home run, and then jogs around the bases a little too slowly, there'll be hell to pay, since it might hurt someone's feelings. But it's also accepted that the pitcher may hit the next batter out of frustration.
Normally I hold up hockey as the ultimate example of a sport with strange and nonsensical accepted behaviours, but Baseball has plenty of foibles that could do with some revisiting too. Hard slides and batter-hitting and other physically-dangerous actions are being equated with actions considered offensive just because someone in the 1800's didn't like it. And strangely, anyone questioning the morality of the fighting and other physical actions is told to suck it up, it's a man's game etc. You essentially have to suppress your emotions, except in things like bat flips, which people probably wouldn't be angered by if they weren't told to be angered by it.
Sunday, February 21, 2016
Things The Teenage Me Would Never Have Believed About Life In The Future, # 29
Toronto has a basketball team, named after a dinosaur. No, not one of the ones you've heard of; it's one made famous in a movie in 1993. And the team has a farm team in Mississauga. It's named after the area code.
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
Turning Over A New Leaf
The big talk around the Toronto Maple Leafs is the possibility that they can sign Steve Stamkos, because of course a star player entering his prime years would want to sign with a team that's been telling everyone they're just starting a multi-year rebuilding. That's unfortunate, since there was another story going on that might actually happen: the team is getting a new logo for its hundredth anniversary next year.
And I've got to say, it's about time. I've never liked this logo, so I'd welcome a new attempt. And so far the journalists I've read on the topic are surprisingly supportive. Normally, I assume that people will get angry when anyone mentions changing anything in hockey, especially with one of the original six teams. We'll see how fans react in the coming days.
The Leafs' logo is, well, symbolic of the strange nature of hockey fandom in general and the Leafs in particular. The Leafs have a tremendously strong following, one that's based on the team's long tradition as a successful institution. Yet all of that success was too long ago for most of today's fans to have seen it. And the team's current logo was introduced right around the time that success ended. But no one wants to change the logo. Why? Tradition!
The current logo was introduced just as Harald Ballard was starting to run the team into the ground, so you'd think it would have been dumped the day after his funeral. Yet, it's endured for another quarter-century.
But on top of its associations, I have to point out that it's never really looked right. For one thing, the shape and font look stuck in the sixties. But also, it looks off-centre. The lobe at the top tries to balance that little stem; it always looks top-heavy.
What should the new logo look like? There'll be lots of worry that they're going to do something crazy with it - the Toronto Star dredged up the horrors of the 90's Islanders' logo. That would qualify as fear mongering if we were talking about anything but sports logos. But really the Leafs' path is clear: take a page out of the Blue Jays' book and come up with a modernized version of a classic logo. Just pick out one of the old symbols - you know, with the big veiny leaf - and neaten it up and find a more modern font. Easy. It'll look great on an aging Steven Stamkos when they sign him in 2022 to compliment the team they've finally finished rebuilding.
And I've got to say, it's about time. I've never liked this logo, so I'd welcome a new attempt. And so far the journalists I've read on the topic are surprisingly supportive. Normally, I assume that people will get angry when anyone mentions changing anything in hockey, especially with one of the original six teams. We'll see how fans react in the coming days.
The Leafs' logo is, well, symbolic of the strange nature of hockey fandom in general and the Leafs in particular. The Leafs have a tremendously strong following, one that's based on the team's long tradition as a successful institution. Yet all of that success was too long ago for most of today's fans to have seen it. And the team's current logo was introduced right around the time that success ended. But no one wants to change the logo. Why? Tradition!
The current logo was introduced just as Harald Ballard was starting to run the team into the ground, so you'd think it would have been dumped the day after his funeral. Yet, it's endured for another quarter-century.
But on top of its associations, I have to point out that it's never really looked right. For one thing, the shape and font look stuck in the sixties. But also, it looks off-centre. The lobe at the top tries to balance that little stem; it always looks top-heavy.
What should the new logo look like? There'll be lots of worry that they're going to do something crazy with it - the Toronto Star dredged up the horrors of the 90's Islanders' logo. That would qualify as fear mongering if we were talking about anything but sports logos. But really the Leafs' path is clear: take a page out of the Blue Jays' book and come up with a modernized version of a classic logo. Just pick out one of the old symbols - you know, with the big veiny leaf - and neaten it up and find a more modern font. Easy. It'll look great on an aging Steven Stamkos when they sign him in 2022 to compliment the team they've finally finished rebuilding.
Tuesday, December 8, 2015
Kobe Beef
The Kobe Bryant retirement tour pulled into Toronto on Monday, as the retiring basketball star played his final game in Toronto (with the possible exception of the upcoming All-Star game.) Although the Toronto Raptors usually have good fan support, a big portion of the audience was there purely to see Kobe, cheering him, and the rest of the Lakers. The cheers for their baskets was nearly as loud as for the home team. That rubbed a few people the wrong way, including Raptors coach Dwayne Casey, who criticized the pro-visitors fans in the post-game interview.
It bothered me too. It's not just that this retirement tour is starting to resemble the ridiculous Derek Jeter tribute tour last year. And it's not just that Bryant isn't a real great person to look up to. But it also seems like it's missing the point of being a sports fan.
This is hard for me, since my sports fandom is permeated by that rare understanding that sports are ultimately meaningless. There really is no logical reason that the Toronto fans should cheer for the Americans (and Lithuanian) in Toronto uniforms rather than those based in Los Angeles. No, there is no moral need to cheer for the home team. But I have to question their motivation. Yes, I'm sure some of them have a deep appreciation of Bryant's athletic skill, but most are just attracted to his mixture of accomplishment and attitude that is oh so marketable to young people. You know there will be similar reactions a few years down the road when Lebron James retires, but there will be nothing of the sort when Tim Duncan calls it a career.
The Raptors are an interesting case for this kind of worship. You know that Boston fans won't be so fawning over Bryant, just as they weren't with Jeter. Of course, that's a team that has both success and history, things the Raptors have little of. But I also think there's a bit of good old Canadian self-deprecation, where we just have a natural assumption that American things are better and cooler, at least in matters pop-cultural. It will be interesting to see how the Minnesota Timberwolves react to the Kobe retirement tour - they too are a young and not-so-winning team, an American counterpart to the Raptors. And oh look, the Lakers are playing there on Wednesday. So we'll get a quick comparison on how to host a retiring superstar.
Wednesday, December 2, 2015
David Signs With Goliath
In investing, there's a concept called selling short, which allows you to make money on a stock that you think will go down in value. Sometimes I wish there were a way to make money off things in everyday life that decline in value.
Take, for instance, Blue Jays season tickets. Yes, I'm glad I didn't buy them during their playoff run, only to see the hype and hope come to a crashing halt this week when David Price signed with rival Boston. It's nice to know I didn't waste money on those tickets, but it's hard to feel smug given that I couldn't afford them anyway.
At the time the Jays traded for Price in the final year of his contact, sports pundits/killjoys warned everyone that it was unlikely they'd be able to sign him beyond this season. So I'm sure that those pundits are currently tut-tutting fans for being disappointed. But that misses the point.
In baseball - as in all non-salary-capped sports leagues - there's two ways to be successful, business-wise:
For some teams, the decision is made for them: a team in a smaller city can't pay big, because even a successful team won't bring in enough money to pay for high end salaries. You have to hope you can succeed by developing talent quickly (like this year's World Series winners, Kansas City.) But more likely you'll languish at the bottom (like Kansas City in the previous two decades.) On the other hand it's hard for a team in New York or Los Angeles to justify sitting on their big pile of cash while watching the team lose year after year.
But for cities in the middle, like Toronto, it's not clear which direction to go in. To make matters worse, the two strategies tend to be self-perpetuating: is hard to sell a low-budget loser to fans used to competing, and its hard to convince a cheap team to start spending in the hope that fans will open their wallets.
It's kind of forgotten now, but the Blue Jays were in that big budget category in their World Series years; although those teams were mostly built on drafts and trades, they also bought free agents to fill in weaknesses and departures, and had one of the highest payrolls in the Majors. Now, of course, they don't, and occasionally people ask, when did everyone decide Toronto was a small market?
The answer is probably sometime around when then-owners Labatts was bought by Interbrew, and became less interested in paying big for ballplayers. But however it happened, they've been caught in that small-market vicious circle for a while now, and its hard to get out of. That's why we Jays fans with an eye on economics were overjoyed for this year's turn around: it wasn't just the fact that they were winning, and the positive vibes of a full SkyDome had returned. It also seemed like they had jump-started the big-market set up. The team took chances to bring in big names, and the fans responded with attendance and ratings. Suddenly, there's no risk: the guys writing the checks know the fans will respond.
And that's why the Price deal stings. It's not just seeing a player leave. It's losing him after we just signed Happ, a good-but-not-great pitcher who has already had one stint with the team, and left without most of us noticing he was gone. And it's the fact that Price's going to one of our two big-spending division rivals. The message could not possibly be clearer: last year was an aberration, and everything is back to the way it had been during our playoff drought, with the Yankees and Red Sox buying whatever they need, while we take mediocre players and hope for a miracle.
I realize there are plenty of reasons why this could be bad for the Red Sox, like the fact that they're going to be paying a 37-year-old pitcher $30 million in 2022. But for now I'm not optimistic. But hopefully this post will prove to be as accurate as last week's "Donald Trump has finally gone too far" article, in which case the Jays will probably sign Zach Grienke.
Take, for instance, Blue Jays season tickets. Yes, I'm glad I didn't buy them during their playoff run, only to see the hype and hope come to a crashing halt this week when David Price signed with rival Boston. It's nice to know I didn't waste money on those tickets, but it's hard to feel smug given that I couldn't afford them anyway.
At the time the Jays traded for Price in the final year of his contact, sports pundits/killjoys warned everyone that it was unlikely they'd be able to sign him beyond this season. So I'm sure that those pundits are currently tut-tutting fans for being disappointed. But that misses the point.
In baseball - as in all non-salary-capped sports leagues - there's two ways to be successful, business-wise:
- Low-income, low-costs - don't spend much on players, meaning that your expenses are low, and you make money despite having less success, thus fewer fans, thus less income.
- High-income, high-costs - you spend big to build and maintain a winner. That costs a lot, but you make up for it by having more fans, thus more income.
For some teams, the decision is made for them: a team in a smaller city can't pay big, because even a successful team won't bring in enough money to pay for high end salaries. You have to hope you can succeed by developing talent quickly (like this year's World Series winners, Kansas City.) But more likely you'll languish at the bottom (like Kansas City in the previous two decades.) On the other hand it's hard for a team in New York or Los Angeles to justify sitting on their big pile of cash while watching the team lose year after year.
But for cities in the middle, like Toronto, it's not clear which direction to go in. To make matters worse, the two strategies tend to be self-perpetuating: is hard to sell a low-budget loser to fans used to competing, and its hard to convince a cheap team to start spending in the hope that fans will open their wallets.
It's kind of forgotten now, but the Blue Jays were in that big budget category in their World Series years; although those teams were mostly built on drafts and trades, they also bought free agents to fill in weaknesses and departures, and had one of the highest payrolls in the Majors. Now, of course, they don't, and occasionally people ask, when did everyone decide Toronto was a small market?
The answer is probably sometime around when then-owners Labatts was bought by Interbrew, and became less interested in paying big for ballplayers. But however it happened, they've been caught in that small-market vicious circle for a while now, and its hard to get out of. That's why we Jays fans with an eye on economics were overjoyed for this year's turn around: it wasn't just the fact that they were winning, and the positive vibes of a full SkyDome had returned. It also seemed like they had jump-started the big-market set up. The team took chances to bring in big names, and the fans responded with attendance and ratings. Suddenly, there's no risk: the guys writing the checks know the fans will respond.
And that's why the Price deal stings. It's not just seeing a player leave. It's losing him after we just signed Happ, a good-but-not-great pitcher who has already had one stint with the team, and left without most of us noticing he was gone. And it's the fact that Price's going to one of our two big-spending division rivals. The message could not possibly be clearer: last year was an aberration, and everything is back to the way it had been during our playoff drought, with the Yankees and Red Sox buying whatever they need, while we take mediocre players and hope for a miracle.
I realize there are plenty of reasons why this could be bad for the Red Sox, like the fact that they're going to be paying a 37-year-old pitcher $30 million in 2022. But for now I'm not optimistic. But hopefully this post will prove to be as accurate as last week's "Donald Trump has finally gone too far" article, in which case the Jays will probably sign Zach Grienke.
Monday, September 14, 2015
Bidding Goodbye
Tomorrow, Toronto is making a big announcement about bidding for the 2024 Olympics. There are conflicting reports of whether they will or won't be bidding. By the time you read this, you'll probably already know.
Toronto tried but failed when bidding for the games in 1996 and 2008. In more recent years, city politics took a turn for the conservative, and the Olympic dream went to the back-burner. But the success of the Pan-Am games has people talking about an Olympic bid again.
Personally, I don't think they should go for it. The fact people seem to be ignoring is that the Pan-Am games don't really change any circumstances. Since it used facilities that were either small or far-flung. (For instance, there's no way the Olympic Committee will accept a velodrome in Milton.) Toronto would still be looking at a tens-of-billions bill for the games.
The fact is, Toronto isn't really in the mood for this. Even if we assume that the Rob Ford episode was a temporary act of rebellion, the fact is that a big chunk of the city wants lower taxes more than they want grand gestures that will look World Class. That's kind of disappointing that the city went from being reserved to minimalist in about thirty years, with only a generation of outgoing assertiveness in between. We in the rest of Canada liked to make fun of Toronto and its quest to be World Class - I'm no exception - but it was always entertaining.
As for the Olympics, you have to wonder how long they are going to be able to keep conning cities into staging the games. I've always thought that they could make the games far more palatable to cities if we could get past the we-have-to-build-all-new-everything mentality. Lots of big cities around the world could stage the Olympics without building anything other than specialized venues like velodromes. They did that in Los Angeles in 1984, and it turned out fine. Well, I discovered that the only reason they did use pre-existing sites then was that they got special permission from the International Olympic Committee. They got that permission because they were the only city bidding. They were the only city bidding because the 1976 summer games in Montreal were such a financial disaster. But there are still cities willing to stage the games under the current circumstances, so they won't have trouble finding a host, even if it's too rich for Toronto's blood. And oh look, Los Angeles is bidding for 2024.
So it looks like the Olympics will continue to be a no-win situation for hosts, in which they build a bunch of facilities that are used for the games then sit unused forever. Although there are horror stories about such things (mostly from Athens in 2004) you can also point to Calgary, where the venues built have been used for years. Of course, that's because many of those facilities didn't exist in Canada prior to the games, so it was a case of nice timing. So if the Olympics is going to insist on building all new stuff for each games, they might get away with that if it keeps going to cities that need new facilities (say, Toronto 1984) or emergent economies (China is likely building lots of new stadiums, we may have to keep holding the Olympics there in one growing megalopolis after another.)
Toronto tried but failed when bidding for the games in 1996 and 2008. In more recent years, city politics took a turn for the conservative, and the Olympic dream went to the back-burner. But the success of the Pan-Am games has people talking about an Olympic bid again.
Personally, I don't think they should go for it. The fact people seem to be ignoring is that the Pan-Am games don't really change any circumstances. Since it used facilities that were either small or far-flung. (For instance, there's no way the Olympic Committee will accept a velodrome in Milton.) Toronto would still be looking at a tens-of-billions bill for the games.
The fact is, Toronto isn't really in the mood for this. Even if we assume that the Rob Ford episode was a temporary act of rebellion, the fact is that a big chunk of the city wants lower taxes more than they want grand gestures that will look World Class. That's kind of disappointing that the city went from being reserved to minimalist in about thirty years, with only a generation of outgoing assertiveness in between. We in the rest of Canada liked to make fun of Toronto and its quest to be World Class - I'm no exception - but it was always entertaining.
As for the Olympics, you have to wonder how long they are going to be able to keep conning cities into staging the games. I've always thought that they could make the games far more palatable to cities if we could get past the we-have-to-build-all-new-everything mentality. Lots of big cities around the world could stage the Olympics without building anything other than specialized venues like velodromes. They did that in Los Angeles in 1984, and it turned out fine. Well, I discovered that the only reason they did use pre-existing sites then was that they got special permission from the International Olympic Committee. They got that permission because they were the only city bidding. They were the only city bidding because the 1976 summer games in Montreal were such a financial disaster. But there are still cities willing to stage the games under the current circumstances, so they won't have trouble finding a host, even if it's too rich for Toronto's blood. And oh look, Los Angeles is bidding for 2024.
So it looks like the Olympics will continue to be a no-win situation for hosts, in which they build a bunch of facilities that are used for the games then sit unused forever. Although there are horror stories about such things (mostly from Athens in 2004) you can also point to Calgary, where the venues built have been used for years. Of course, that's because many of those facilities didn't exist in Canada prior to the games, so it was a case of nice timing. So if the Olympics is going to insist on building all new stuff for each games, they might get away with that if it keeps going to cities that need new facilities (say, Toronto 1984) or emergent economies (China is likely building lots of new stadiums, we may have to keep holding the Olympics there in one growing megalopolis after another.)
Sunday, July 19, 2015
Yo Kanye, We're Really Happy For You, We'll Let You Finish
Kanye West has been signed to perform at the closing ceremonies of the Pan-Am games in Toronto. My first reaction to this is that it's such a Toronto thing to do.
It's reminiscent of SARS-stock, the concert to announce that Toronto was open for business following the SARS outbreak. It had the basic problem that they were trying to advertise their city by hosting a concert of The Rolling Stones, AC/DC, and other acts who were almost completely from other places. The message came out as, "Toronto is great, because we can afford to hire famous people." CNN had the best line, commenting that this was the first time Keith Richards has been used as a symbol of public health. It was a great indication of how Toronto desperately wants to publicize itself, but doesn't really know how.
The irony is that although Toronto often seems quite separate from the smaller communities of Southern Ontario, it still has essentially the same mentality. A small town down the 401 from Toronto might think the key to being taken seriously is to get a Walmart, not considering that lots of places have Walmarts. Similarly, Toronto tries to get world respect by gathering more of the things other big cities have.
And that leads to perhaps the strangest part of this hire-famous-foreigners phenomena: the officials responsible are so oblivious. When questioned about the choice, the head of the games said that the closing ceremonies of most sports events have big acts, so this is not unusual. A quick look at recent Olympic closing ceremonies show that they do indeed feature big acts, but he didn't seem to notice the pattern that it's always big acts from the host country. Even our antipodean doppelgänger Australia had a performance of every musician they've ever produced except AC/DC.
And news reports (usually emanating from Toronto) don't seem to get it either. One CBC report began by flatly starting that people were uncomfortable with Kanye because he isn't a nice person, dredging up the footage of him interrupting Taylor Swift. They then proceeded to show person-on-the-street interviews about it, all of whom criticized the choice based on West's not being Canadian. So it seems many of us - even Torontonians - do get it, it will just take a while to filter to the top.
It's reminiscent of SARS-stock, the concert to announce that Toronto was open for business following the SARS outbreak. It had the basic problem that they were trying to advertise their city by hosting a concert of The Rolling Stones, AC/DC, and other acts who were almost completely from other places. The message came out as, "Toronto is great, because we can afford to hire famous people." CNN had the best line, commenting that this was the first time Keith Richards has been used as a symbol of public health. It was a great indication of how Toronto desperately wants to publicize itself, but doesn't really know how.
The irony is that although Toronto often seems quite separate from the smaller communities of Southern Ontario, it still has essentially the same mentality. A small town down the 401 from Toronto might think the key to being taken seriously is to get a Walmart, not considering that lots of places have Walmarts. Similarly, Toronto tries to get world respect by gathering more of the things other big cities have.
And that leads to perhaps the strangest part of this hire-famous-foreigners phenomena: the officials responsible are so oblivious. When questioned about the choice, the head of the games said that the closing ceremonies of most sports events have big acts, so this is not unusual. A quick look at recent Olympic closing ceremonies show that they do indeed feature big acts, but he didn't seem to notice the pattern that it's always big acts from the host country. Even our antipodean doppelgänger Australia had a performance of every musician they've ever produced except AC/DC.
And news reports (usually emanating from Toronto) don't seem to get it either. One CBC report began by flatly starting that people were uncomfortable with Kanye because he isn't a nice person, dredging up the footage of him interrupting Taylor Swift. They then proceeded to show person-on-the-street interviews about it, all of whom criticized the choice based on West's not being Canadian. So it seems many of us - even Torontonians - do get it, it will just take a while to filter to the top.
Friday, October 10, 2014
Get Ready For "Toryonto" Puns
Many people are looking at the polls in Toronto's mayoral race and wondering what is going on with Doug Ford staying close to the lead. Urban Studies Professor Richard Florida has been asking a further question: Is Toronto really as conservative as the polls seem to show. John Tory is leading, and he is about as conservative as the Fords. Essentially, he is Rob Ford without the crack. Or the bigotry. Or the shamelessness, public drunkenness, bullying, or drunk and distracted driving. The point is that all told, about three-quarters of Torontonians are intending to vote for a highly conservative candidate.
It would be easy to discount Florida's questions as those of someone who can't accept that his own views aren't as popular as he'd like. But he does have a valid point that these polls are very unusual compared to any other North American city. All other large cities are more liberal than the areas around them, yet the choice of candidates here would indicate that Toronto is much more conservative than Canada as a whole.
But I think there are some good explanations for the polling:
It would be easy to discount Florida's questions as those of someone who can't accept that his own views aren't as popular as he'd like. But he does have a valid point that these polls are very unusual compared to any other North American city. All other large cities are more liberal than the areas around them, yet the choice of candidates here would indicate that Toronto is much more conservative than Canada as a whole.
But I think there are some good explanations for the polling:
- There's probably a sizeable Anybody-But-Ford sentiment in Toronto. So a lot of people planning on voting for Tory may be doing so only to keep Ford out of office. My own politics are closer to those of Olivia Chow, but if I lived in Toronto, I'd be seriously considering voting for Tory.
- The Fords have been the focus of the election all along. When that happens other candidates don't get the close inspection a major politician usually gets. It's entirely possible that many Tory supporters don't know much about the mild-mannered candidate's platform.
- It's naive to believe that all Ford's supporters are attached to conservative ideals. The Fords are populists, and people are drawn to populists not for politics, but for personal connection to the candidate.
- Thanks to amalgamation, Toronto includes a lot of its suburbs. In most big Canadian or American cities, the itself is just the urban bit in the middle. The suburbs - which may make up most of the population - are different political entities. As Mike Harris showed, the suburban and satellite populations can get really enthusiastic for conservative economics.
- Expanding on that, the fact that Toronto has been amalgamated for a while now has caused some resentment and tension between its urban and suburban aspects. Probably a lot of people who normally would consider candidates from the middle of the spectrum are looking for some political vengeance.
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
Wikimandias
When I recently mentioned Harold Ballard, I linked to his Wikipedia entry for anyone outside Canada or too young to remember the former owner of the Toronto Maple Leafs. Having looked him up, I skimmed through the entry for a trip down memory lane.
Why would I reminisce over such an unpleasant man? I find it's reassuring to see the mighty that have fallen. So often, there are unpleasant things in our society that are so heavily entrenched that it seems they will never be defeated. So revisiting such forces of the past reminds us that there is hope for tomorrow. For instance, Amazon.com may seem like a bullying monopoly right now, but one look at the current state of Microsoft shows that they will get their comeuppance eventually too.
Sure, the Leafs still haven't won the cup. In fact, here's a depressing thought: Ballard became majority owner of the Leafs in 1971, not long after their last Cup in 1967. Then he owned them until his death nineteen years later in 1990. But that was twenty-four years ago! So he's not even mostly responsible for the Leafs' futility anymore.
So I was reading the list of selected Ballard incidents. Usually, the wikieditors frown on that sort of thing in their esteemed site, but with Ballard they seem to have conceded that there's no way to describe him; his personality had a Zen quality that must be explained through examples.
And as I was reading through these incidents, I was struck by the similarities between him and Rob Ford, another Torontonian that you could never really describe:
Why would I reminisce over such an unpleasant man? I find it's reassuring to see the mighty that have fallen. So often, there are unpleasant things in our society that are so heavily entrenched that it seems they will never be defeated. So revisiting such forces of the past reminds us that there is hope for tomorrow. For instance, Amazon.com may seem like a bullying monopoly right now, but one look at the current state of Microsoft shows that they will get their comeuppance eventually too.
Sure, the Leafs still haven't won the cup. In fact, here's a depressing thought: Ballard became majority owner of the Leafs in 1971, not long after their last Cup in 1967. Then he owned them until his death nineteen years later in 1990. But that was twenty-four years ago! So he's not even mostly responsible for the Leafs' futility anymore.
So I was reading the list of selected Ballard incidents. Usually, the wikieditors frown on that sort of thing in their esteemed site, but with Ballard they seem to have conceded that there's no way to describe him; his personality had a Zen quality that must be explained through examples.
And as I was reading through these incidents, I was struck by the similarities between him and Rob Ford, another Torontonian that you could never really describe:
- hugely antisocial, but has somehow made enough connections to climb the ladder
- Doesn't even pretend to be civil
- Acts like a stereotypical business man from fifty years earlier
- Many people love him for his entertainment value
- Will drop to any level to insult or slander enemies
Thursday, July 31, 2014
Bills Bills Bills
The bids to buy the Buffalo Bills are in, and one of them intends to bring the team to Toronto. Another comes from Donald Trump, and the third presumably comes from sane people.
I'm still on record as saying that the move to Toronto won't happen. But with so few people who think that the Bills are worth half as much as the Clippers, who knows?
Today on TSN, two of their designated experts discussed the question of just how big a team in Toronto would be. I'm sure I wasn't the only one surprised when Dave Naylor jumped right in with a claim that they would be as big as the Leafs (albeit with the "if they're competitive" caveat.)
That's not as crazy as it sounds. Toronto sports media occasionally reminisce with amazement about how in 1985, the Leafs had trouble getting any media to come to the press conference where they introduced first-overall draft pick Wendel Clark.
I'm still on record as saying that the move to Toronto won't happen. But with so few people who think that the Bills are worth half as much as the Clippers, who knows?
Today on TSN, two of their designated experts discussed the question of just how big a team in Toronto would be. I'm sure I wasn't the only one surprised when Dave Naylor jumped right in with a claim that they would be as big as the Leafs (albeit with the "if they're competitive" caveat.)
That's not as crazy as it sounds. Toronto sports media occasionally reminisce with amazement about how in 1985, the Leafs had trouble getting any media to come to the press conference where they introduced first-overall draft pick Wendel Clark.
Today, a Leafs first-overall pick would have to go into hiding to avoid the media glare. But remember:
Having said that, we've seen how a mediocre Jays team can fade into the background. And the usually-bad Raptors can fill seats, but not really enter the public consciousness. If a Toronto Bills were as successful as, well, the Buffalo Bills, they wouldn't put a dent in the Leafs' support.
The really shocking part of the debate was when they addressed the question of locals' dedication to other teams. There's plenty of NFL fandom in Toronto, but that didn't translate into success of the Bills in Toronto games. And that's largely because most of that fandom is spread among the league's 32 teams, rather than behind the Bills. Would that still be a problem if the team were permanently in Toronto? I doubt it, and Naylor did too. But the bizarre part was that he made the point by drawing on the experience of newer NFL teams, like Carolina and Jacksonville. That's strange, because Jacksonville has been the league's least financially successful team for years. They have famously had to tarp-over thousands of seats in their stadium so as to reduce the seating capacity, so the team will sell out and avoid blacking out their games locally. Indeed, I thought Toronto's best chance at getting a team would be if the Jaguars were also available. So the Jags were a terrible example to bring up, since they are the counterexample to the assumption that NFL teams will be successful everywhere. If a team deep in the heart of football country is having so much trouble drawing fans, it has to challenge the assumption that a team will be successful in Toronto.
- This was in the darkest days of the Harold Ballard era, when finishing fourth-of-five in the league's worst division was the most they ever achieved.
- It was only 18 years since the last time the Leafs won the cup. Most of the fan base could remember the last win, and it all seemed less desperate.
- In the years before sports networks, blogs, and dedicated sports radio stations, there was less obsession with the Leafs
- This was during The Drive Of '85, the Jays' first playoff run, and that was by far the biggest sports story at the time.
Having said that, we've seen how a mediocre Jays team can fade into the background. And the usually-bad Raptors can fill seats, but not really enter the public consciousness. If a Toronto Bills were as successful as, well, the Buffalo Bills, they wouldn't put a dent in the Leafs' support.
The really shocking part of the debate was when they addressed the question of locals' dedication to other teams. There's plenty of NFL fandom in Toronto, but that didn't translate into success of the Bills in Toronto games. And that's largely because most of that fandom is spread among the league's 32 teams, rather than behind the Bills. Would that still be a problem if the team were permanently in Toronto? I doubt it, and Naylor did too. But the bizarre part was that he made the point by drawing on the experience of newer NFL teams, like Carolina and Jacksonville. That's strange, because Jacksonville has been the league's least financially successful team for years. They have famously had to tarp-over thousands of seats in their stadium so as to reduce the seating capacity, so the team will sell out and avoid blacking out their games locally. Indeed, I thought Toronto's best chance at getting a team would be if the Jaguars were also available. So the Jags were a terrible example to bring up, since they are the counterexample to the assumption that NFL teams will be successful everywhere. If a team deep in the heart of football country is having so much trouble drawing fans, it has to challenge the assumption that a team will be successful in Toronto.
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
No One Circles The Vultures Like The Buffalo Bills
Ralph Wilson, owner of the Buffalo Bills, has died at age 95. He was a great leader in the community, respected among his peers for his integrity, and, um... have we mourned long enough yet? Good, let's start the bidding and get this team out of here.
The elderly Wilson announced that upon his death, the Bills would be sold to the highest bidder, with no preference given to keeping the team in demographically unpromising Western New York. And that led to ghoulish speculation and strategizing about the team's future.
In Toronto, they're they're continuing to talk as if they are the leading candidate to receive the Bills. Frankly, I don't understand how you could think so. A big sticking point is the fact that the Rogers Centre is quite small compared to other NFL stadiums. (It would tie with Oakland for smallest stadium in the league.) The rebuttal to that has always been a claim the strong dollar and a rabid fanbase would allow them to make as much money out of a smaller stadium. Well, the dollar is no longer strong, and the enthusiasm of Toronto fans has been disproven by the Bills games that have been played in Toronto.
And that series of Bills games in Toronto is the mind-boggling thing about people hanging on to the Bills-in-Toronto dream. To my knowledge, it's unprecedented for a city to get a "test drive" of the sports franchise they want to adopt. The closest thing I can think of was when Oklahoma City got to temporarily host the New Orleans Hornets in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, then later became the new home of the Seattle Sonics. And in that case, the adopted team was popular in the temporary city.
When we had the fortune to see how Toronto reacts to the presence of the Bills, it wasn't promising. Even with a small stadium, they had difficulty selling all the seats. After seeing that, it's hard to believe anyone would still be interested in owning a team in Toronto.
I know, you can make the case that the public would feel greater ownership of the team if it's permanently part of the city. That may be, but remember that it's not a question of whether the Bills could be successful in Toronto. It's a question of whether they can pony up the cash to win the auction. When your proposal is built around doubt like that, you're not going to win against investors from American cities who know the franchise will be successful.
The elderly Wilson announced that upon his death, the Bills would be sold to the highest bidder, with no preference given to keeping the team in demographically unpromising Western New York. And that led to ghoulish speculation and strategizing about the team's future.
In Toronto, they're they're continuing to talk as if they are the leading candidate to receive the Bills. Frankly, I don't understand how you could think so. A big sticking point is the fact that the Rogers Centre is quite small compared to other NFL stadiums. (It would tie with Oakland for smallest stadium in the league.) The rebuttal to that has always been a claim the strong dollar and a rabid fanbase would allow them to make as much money out of a smaller stadium. Well, the dollar is no longer strong, and the enthusiasm of Toronto fans has been disproven by the Bills games that have been played in Toronto.
And that series of Bills games in Toronto is the mind-boggling thing about people hanging on to the Bills-in-Toronto dream. To my knowledge, it's unprecedented for a city to get a "test drive" of the sports franchise they want to adopt. The closest thing I can think of was when Oklahoma City got to temporarily host the New Orleans Hornets in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, then later became the new home of the Seattle Sonics. And in that case, the adopted team was popular in the temporary city.
When we had the fortune to see how Toronto reacts to the presence of the Bills, it wasn't promising. Even with a small stadium, they had difficulty selling all the seats. After seeing that, it's hard to believe anyone would still be interested in owning a team in Toronto.
I know, you can make the case that the public would feel greater ownership of the team if it's permanently part of the city. That may be, but remember that it's not a question of whether the Bills could be successful in Toronto. It's a question of whether they can pony up the cash to win the auction. When your proposal is built around doubt like that, you're not going to win against investors from American cities who know the franchise will be successful.
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Once More, Without Feeling
If you'll permit me one more look at Rob Ford, here's another interesting aspect of his phenomena that doesn't directly involve crack.
People have made a big deal over the fact that he still has non-trivial support levels. And more to the point, if the non-hothead/crackhead vote is split enough ways, he might even win. But it occurred me that there's a much more mundane oddity here: it's not often you see so much enthusiasm for anyone's re-election.
Obviously, politicians get reelected all the time, but usually the base undergoes a big change for the pragmatic (and smaller) during that first term. President Obama is a good example. When he was first elected, his supporters were about as enthusiastic as any voters I've seen in my lifetime. When he was reelected, most of those same people voted for him again, but were far less happy about it. A lot of his votes were against the opposition rather than for him, and a fair number were probably based on devil-you-know reasoning. And that's how it usually works. You might get reelected, but don't expect anyone outside the party's strongest supporters to be happy about it.
But Ford's supporters - fewer though may be now - do seem to be bringing the enthusiasm to his re-election that one normally only sees for a leader that has yet to be sullied by reality.
The explanation is pretty obvious, really. If you're still supporting Ford, it could only be because you whole-heartedly accept his version of events, and the schtick that the police and media are against them. And if you believe Ford when he says he's clean and sober, you're also going to take his word for it that he's single-handedly saved the city billions and that life under his predecessors was relentless hell.
Ford is the ultimate in the modern political approach of media manipulations. Other parties may have a newspaper or news network on their side, bending the truth in their direction. But Ford goes one better: by building his support on the premise that even media is part of the problem, he doesn't need anyone to manipulate the news for him, he is the news source. It makes you wonder if other politicians will try the extreme confrontation/persecution strategy in the future.
People have made a big deal over the fact that he still has non-trivial support levels. And more to the point, if the non-hothead/crackhead vote is split enough ways, he might even win. But it occurred me that there's a much more mundane oddity here: it's not often you see so much enthusiasm for anyone's re-election.
Obviously, politicians get reelected all the time, but usually the base undergoes a big change for the pragmatic (and smaller) during that first term. President Obama is a good example. When he was first elected, his supporters were about as enthusiastic as any voters I've seen in my lifetime. When he was reelected, most of those same people voted for him again, but were far less happy about it. A lot of his votes were against the opposition rather than for him, and a fair number were probably based on devil-you-know reasoning. And that's how it usually works. You might get reelected, but don't expect anyone outside the party's strongest supporters to be happy about it.
But Ford's supporters - fewer though may be now - do seem to be bringing the enthusiasm to his re-election that one normally only sees for a leader that has yet to be sullied by reality.
The explanation is pretty obvious, really. If you're still supporting Ford, it could only be because you whole-heartedly accept his version of events, and the schtick that the police and media are against them. And if you believe Ford when he says he's clean and sober, you're also going to take his word for it that he's single-handedly saved the city billions and that life under his predecessors was relentless hell.
Ford is the ultimate in the modern political approach of media manipulations. Other parties may have a newspaper or news network on their side, bending the truth in their direction. But Ford goes one better: by building his support on the premise that even media is part of the problem, he doesn't need anyone to manipulate the news for him, he is the news source. It makes you wonder if other politicians will try the extreme confrontation/persecution strategy in the future.
Monday, March 24, 2014
This Post Is Just OK
You may have seen the recent to-do in which Maple Leafs coach Randy Carlyle dammed goalie James Reimer with faint praise in a post-game interview. That lead to much discussion in the media about the coach not having confidence in his goalie. This seems to have coincided with the start of a slump by Reimer, which is bad for a team that typically gives up a lot of shots.
That leads me to wonder how is it that coaches are so bad at dealing with the Toronto media. It's no secret that:
He has, of course, gone through the traditional blaming the reporters for what's happening. I don't want to sound like I'm letting the media off scot-free here: they are obsessive and simplistic. But when the coach knows this is going to happen, he has to take some blame too. Yet Toronto coaches continually make this mistake. It's like they're too stubborn to acknowledge that they can't control the media. Too bad it's the players who keep paying the price.
That brings me to another theory of mine as to why Canadian teams never win the Stanley Cup. We have rather specific ideas about what a winning hockey team looks like, and our teams tend to get built according to that vision. Vancouver is another good example. As a team built on skilled forwards and a laid-back goalie, we always diagnosed them as too soft. So the team tries to compensate by hiring a combative, butt-kicking coach, ignoring the fact that his style doesn't fit the team's talent. Toronto keeps hiring tough-talking coaches and can't figure out why their youngsters and goalies never develop. Silly as it sounds, coaches should take some courses in Public Relations.
That leads me to wonder how is it that coaches are so bad at dealing with the Toronto media. It's no secret that:
- Canadians are obsessed with hockey.
- Toronto is obsessed with itself
- Toronto has many media outlets
He has, of course, gone through the traditional blaming the reporters for what's happening. I don't want to sound like I'm letting the media off scot-free here: they are obsessive and simplistic. But when the coach knows this is going to happen, he has to take some blame too. Yet Toronto coaches continually make this mistake. It's like they're too stubborn to acknowledge that they can't control the media. Too bad it's the players who keep paying the price.
That brings me to another theory of mine as to why Canadian teams never win the Stanley Cup. We have rather specific ideas about what a winning hockey team looks like, and our teams tend to get built according to that vision. Vancouver is another good example. As a team built on skilled forwards and a laid-back goalie, we always diagnosed them as too soft. So the team tries to compensate by hiring a combative, butt-kicking coach, ignoring the fact that his style doesn't fit the team's talent. Toronto keeps hiring tough-talking coaches and can't figure out why their youngsters and goalies never develop. Silly as it sounds, coaches should take some courses in Public Relations.
Monday, March 3, 2014
Let's See Who's On Fallon
I watched tonight's interview with Rob Ford on Jimmy Kimmel Live!. Well, I only watched part of it. Eventually I grew sick of watching that amoral clown who'll do anything for attention. And Rob Ford was annoying too.
This incident really crossed a few lines: First, from Rob Ford's perspective. It's one thing to be the butt of jokes. That's part of being a politician (not usually this big a part, but always a part.) But actually going out of your way to go on a show to be the butt of jokes is something else. He seems to have transitioned from mayor to full-time publicity-seeker.
And for Jimmy Kimmel. Sure, comedians often joke about liking politicians who provide them with material. But they don't actually help those politicians out. They may say they're going to vote for Anthony Weiner, but they don't actually do it. Yes, I know Kimmel didn't volunteer to work on his re-election or anything, but a softball interview in which Ford is allowed to repeat his usual lies without challenge certainly helps him out more than a campaign contribution. Even Ford's former allies in the Sun wouldn't do that much for him.
When a comedian makes fun of a person, it should be because that person has done something to genuinely deserve it. And if that person genuinely deserves to be targeted, we want to see them actually get ridiculed. Suddenly giving them a free pass makes it seem like you're not a comedian so much as a jerk who'll strike out at anyone when it's convenient, and it's not satisfying to watch that.
The irony is that Kimmel famously disliked Jay Leno, and yet this sort of ideologically empty comedy was something Leno was often accused of: He'd make any joke about any public figure, no matter whether it was fair or accurate or contradicting the joke he made the night before. But now Kimmel seems to have taken up the anything-for-a-laugh (and ratings) mantel.
This incident really crossed a few lines: First, from Rob Ford's perspective. It's one thing to be the butt of jokes. That's part of being a politician (not usually this big a part, but always a part.) But actually going out of your way to go on a show to be the butt of jokes is something else. He seems to have transitioned from mayor to full-time publicity-seeker.
And for Jimmy Kimmel. Sure, comedians often joke about liking politicians who provide them with material. But they don't actually help those politicians out. They may say they're going to vote for Anthony Weiner, but they don't actually do it. Yes, I know Kimmel didn't volunteer to work on his re-election or anything, but a softball interview in which Ford is allowed to repeat his usual lies without challenge certainly helps him out more than a campaign contribution. Even Ford's former allies in the Sun wouldn't do that much for him.
When a comedian makes fun of a person, it should be because that person has done something to genuinely deserve it. And if that person genuinely deserves to be targeted, we want to see them actually get ridiculed. Suddenly giving them a free pass makes it seem like you're not a comedian so much as a jerk who'll strike out at anyone when it's convenient, and it's not satisfying to watch that.
The irony is that Kimmel famously disliked Jay Leno, and yet this sort of ideologically empty comedy was something Leno was often accused of: He'd make any joke about any public figure, no matter whether it was fair or accurate or contradicting the joke he made the night before. But now Kimmel seems to have taken up the anything-for-a-laugh (and ratings) mantel.
Saturday, February 8, 2014
Who's Your Embarrassment?
Richard Florida is an urbanist and author of The Rise of the Creative Class, and Who's Your City? Like previous star of the urban planning literati, Jane Jacobs, he is an American who had chosen Toronto as his home. So you can imagine that Rob Ford is a disappointment to him on many levels.
But that disappointment became especially apparent in a recent tweet, in which he said,
I found that shocking, though I'm not sure why it should. While it's true that Bush did more real damage than Ford, that's really only because Ford doesn't have access to an army. If he did, I'm sure he would have found a reason to invade Hamilton by now.
This brings up something I've noticed: while we hold most of our politicians to very high standards (too high, I'd argue.) We give municipal leaders a pass on so much. Yeah, I know, there's the angry suburban taxpayer, writing letters-to-the-editor crying poverty over sub-inflation property-tax increases. But for most people, there is little known about what the local leaders do. And it seems to be a matter of faith that local leaders are inherently better than the more distant politicians at higher levels of government. Turn-out for municipal elections is consistently lower than other levels.
As I claimed earlier, Ford's conservative credentials are not as good as his supporters think they are. But the same is true of Bush, what with his unfunded extension of Medicare. When you look at it, there's no question that Bush is a more pleasant human being. Both put on an intentionally dumb façade as a way to connect with gullible voters, though I suspect Ford's public face is closer to reality than Bush's. While Bush will be forever linked with a war started on flimsy evidence, I have no doubt that Ford, in that position would have left the truth far behind. Speaking of which, Ford is willing to play much dirtier: I don't see even Karl Rove accusing a journalist of being a pedophile out of nowhere.
So I have to agree with Florida: on almost any measure, Bush is preferable to Ford. And I, too, am guilty of being soft on local politicians.
But that disappointment became especially apparent in a recent tweet, in which he said,
Canadian friends used to ask me if I was embarrassed by George W. Bush, I am far, far more embarrassed and disgusted by Rob Ford.
I found that shocking, though I'm not sure why it should. While it's true that Bush did more real damage than Ford, that's really only because Ford doesn't have access to an army. If he did, I'm sure he would have found a reason to invade Hamilton by now.
This brings up something I've noticed: while we hold most of our politicians to very high standards (too high, I'd argue.) We give municipal leaders a pass on so much. Yeah, I know, there's the angry suburban taxpayer, writing letters-to-the-editor crying poverty over sub-inflation property-tax increases. But for most people, there is little known about what the local leaders do. And it seems to be a matter of faith that local leaders are inherently better than the more distant politicians at higher levels of government. Turn-out for municipal elections is consistently lower than other levels.
As I claimed earlier, Ford's conservative credentials are not as good as his supporters think they are. But the same is true of Bush, what with his unfunded extension of Medicare. When you look at it, there's no question that Bush is a more pleasant human being. Both put on an intentionally dumb façade as a way to connect with gullible voters, though I suspect Ford's public face is closer to reality than Bush's. While Bush will be forever linked with a war started on flimsy evidence, I have no doubt that Ford, in that position would have left the truth far behind. Speaking of which, Ford is willing to play much dirtier: I don't see even Karl Rove accusing a journalist of being a pedophile out of nowhere.
So I have to agree with Florida: on almost any measure, Bush is preferable to Ford. And I, too, am guilty of being soft on local politicians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)