Grapes, Crushed

[Jim Bauch]

Long overdue I would say.

There was a time when I actually enjoyed the guy. I even defended here some of his non-hockey commentary, on those occasions when I felt he was just "honoring the troops" rather than promoting the war.

But his act wore thin and got dated. Maybe he became more of a caricature of himself, with the Leaf-loving, Hab-hating, nationalistic, right-wing carnival show, or maybe I just started to notice it more. Worst of all from a television network's point of view, Cherry became (to me, but I suspect many others too) boring.

In recent years I only heard about him when he provoked some special controversy, or when people were making fun of him, like the Carolina Hurricanes twitter account last year. And that was surely a sign of the times -- Cherry had gone from being the court jester irritating the hockey establishment to being the cranky old man who just doesn't get it.

Of course, now the rumor is that Brian Burke will take over that slot, so I doubt my viewing habits will change.

Jim

[Chuck]

Brian Burke = Don Cherry lite

But this didn`t have to be a trainwreck. Coach's Corner has run its course long ago. It has lasted this long because of the refusal of HNIC/Sportsnet to embrace change. I don`t think Cherry would ever willingly retire. He'd leave the job in a box, or a hospital bed, or be fired due to a brain misfire. It was never going to end well. Time for a new original show? Fat chance, as that concept would have come from the same excecs who lack the nerve to come up with anything new. My bet is the call went out "Find me a grumpy Hockey senior to replace Cherry" someone call Burke or Roenik and tell them taking the job, it will be yours for life.

[Chuck]

On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 5:34:24 PM UTC-5, Jim Bauch wrote:

I think they should have left Remembrance Day to be a Day of Remembrance of those who gave the ultimate sacrifice not the day Cherry was fired on. The Ceremonies should have been the top news story, Cherry could have been fired later in the week.

[Gerry]

Definitely long overdue. Cherry was a guy with a schtick that schtuck for a long time, and the really disappointing thing is that our society embraced that schtick as long as it did - and then with the more recent divisiveness going around he is if anything more beloved than ever in certain circles, and will gain some martyrdom points out of this.

I think it was some time in the 90s when I started just automatically changing channels in the 1st intermission. Rock 'em Sock 'em was fun as a kid, but eventually you grow out of it and the larger social overtones just seem a lot darker these days than ever before. Somebody should have had the guts to can him 20 years ago. Glad they finally took a stand this time.

And don't just do the tone-deaf traditional HNIC move of keeping the segment and merely replacing him with some other windbag dinosaur like Burke. Take the hint. The segment has more than run its course. Do something fresh instead. Make the 1st intermission worth watching. Sell the game. Market the players. Put a little thought into it.

l8r,
Gerry

[gorgo...@gmail.com]

I won't argue the validity of whether Cherry has passed his due date or what he adds, or detracts, from hickey. Thats all a matter of personal preference although his viewershio numbers would suggest he is still relevant. Sort of a mix of his viewership being a mix of those watching cuz they like him and those cuz they like to hate him. Regardless, my biggest disapointment is the continued erosion of free speech in Canada (the US too). He should be allowed to voice his opinion. Peeps can totaly disagree, call him names, say they're despicable, publically distance themselves from them (Rogers, CBC, NHL), but IMO he should be allowed to state them. Who knows, maybe he's right, perhaps a higher percentage of immigrants don't wear poppies. Cherry has always spoken without thinking and this is just another example. As for me, I take it he was more referring to non-poppie wearers. Whatever. He shouldn't have been fired for an opinion. I can see a day where someone will get fired for saying Leaf fans suck.

[Chuck]

Worst part was seeing the media trot out pundits to try interpreting what Cherry said before actually questioning Cherry himself turning Cherry into a lightening rod for PC enforcers.

[Jim Bauch]

On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 6:26:25 AM UTC-8, gorgo...@gmail.com wrote:
> I won't argue the validity of whether Cherry has passed his due date or what he adds, or detracts, from hickey. Thats all a matter of personal preference although his viewershio numbers would suggest he is still relevant. Sort of a mix of his viewership being a mix of those watching cuz they like him and those cuz they like to hate him. Regardless, my biggest disapointment is the continued erosion of free speech in Canada (the US too). He should be allowed to voice his opinion. Peeps can totaly disagree, call him names, say they're despicable, publically distance themselves from them (Rogers, CBC, NHL), but IMO he should be allowed to state them. Who knows, maybe he's right, perhaps a higher percentage of immigrants don't wear poppies. Cherry has always spoken without thinking and this is just another example. As for me, I take it he was more referring to non-poppie wearers. Whatever. He shouldn't have been fired for an opinion. I can see a day where someone will get fired for saying Leaf fans suck.

Great! In your preferred world, where do I sign up for my slot of weekly national air-time, and how much do I get paid?

Cherry is still free to state his opinions on any public street or park, on any blog, podcast, or YouTube channel he cares to start, on his Twitter and Facebook accounts, in a book, or on any other television or radio program or newspaper or magazine that cares to interview him. He's not entitled to a guaranteed spot on CBC or Rogers' programs or air time unless he negotiated for that, which he clearly didn't.

And in fact, I see he is already making the rounds on Tucker Carlson, with other shows on the conservative-except-when-the-business-owner-wants-to-fire-a-conservative talk circuit no doubt soon to follow. People who want to hear Cherry's views will have plenty of opportunities to do so, and buy whatever shit he wants to sell.

Jim

[Jim Bauch]

On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 6:26:25 AM UTC-8, gorgo...@gmail.com wrote:

> I won't argue the validity of whether Cherry has passed his due date or what he adds, or detracts, from hickey. Thats all a matter of personal preference although his viewershio numbers would suggest he is still relevant.

Do we know what his viewership numbers are? My understanding was that those weren't public. I've heard rumors that the internal numbers that CBC/Rogers had access to USED to show that Coach's Corner held or even increased audience from the first period, but that there was a dropoff in recent years and those commercial spots were not so coveted. But those were just rumors, so I'd like to see actual numbers if anyone has them.

Jim

[Jim Bauch]

On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 7:34:45 AM UTC-8, Chuck wrote:
> Worst part was seeing the media trot out pundits to try interpreting what Cherry said before actually questioning Cherry himself turning Cherry into a lightening rod for PC enforcers.

Chuck, it wasn't exactly a subtle point Cherry was making.

And spare me the nonsense about "PC enforcers." This was a business decision. His employers are trying to grow the hockey audience, and one of their biggest growth sectors is immigrant communities. Having a prominent employee insulting their target customers is bad for business.

Jim

[Gerry]

On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 9:26:25 AM UTC-5, gorgo...@gmail.com wrote:
> I won't argue the validity of whether Cherry has passed his due date or what he adds, or detracts, from hickey. Thats all a matter of personal preference although his viewershio numbers would suggest he is still relevant. Sort of a mix of his viewership being a mix of those watching cuz they like him and those cuz they like to hate him. Regardless, my biggest disapointment is the continued erosion of free speech in Canada (the US too). He should be allowed to voice his opinion. Peeps can totaly disagree, call him names, say they're despicable, publically distance themselves from them (Rogers, CBC, NHL), but IMO he should be allowed to state them. Who knows, maybe he's right, perhaps a higher percentage of immigrants don't wear poppies. Cherry has always spoken without thinking and this is just another example. As for me, I take it he was more referring to non-poppie wearers. Whatever. He shouldn't have been fired for an opinion. I can see a day where someone will get fired for saying Leaf fans suck.

Jim basically already answered this. This has NOTHING to do with "free speech". What a dog-whistle that is. He can shake his fist at whatever clouds he wants to... from his rocking chair on his own front porch, or the comfort of his living room. Nobody is going to deny him the right to express his bigoted and antiquated views in private. But no employer is obligated to pay him to express them on a national television broadcast.

He shouldn't have been fired for expressing an opinion? Uh, that's up to his boss, not you. That he expressed a bigoted opinion which doesn't reflect the values of his employer is certainly grounds for firing him. Nobody owes him a platform to spread his prejudices. If he really wants to spread them, I'm sure he has lots of his own money that he can invest in that endeavour. He'll find an audience I'm sure. It's a sad commentary on our society, but he'll definitely find an audience. Still, nobody is REQUIRED to provide him that exposure.

l8r,
Gerry

[Chuck]

I had no problems with the end of Coach's Corner. I didn`t care for the endless analysis on a day where Remembrance Day should have been the top story. As for his employers, Cherry had already served up enough reasons to have been fired him long ago

[Chuck]

I`d think the game being played has more effect on the viewership then a intermission segment. Where during its broadcast viewers are either stocking up at the fridge or headed for a bathroom break or channel surfing

[Gerry]

On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 11:14:00 AM UTC-5, Chuck wrote:
> I`d think the game being played has more effect on the viewership then a intermission segment. Where during its broadcast viewers are either stocking up at the fridge or headed for a bathroom break or channel surfing

I think that's true in general. Although a GOOD intermission segment could change things up. When I was 10 I would watch the Showdown because that was cool and interested me. Sometimes I watch the 2nd intermission for news and tidbits from around the league. But mostly it has been channel surfing. Still, hockey is my only sport and #1 entertainment option - if they can make something that actually interests me, about hockey, I'll watch it. Cherry's dated rants lost any appeal a couple decades ago. So they will be going the wrong direction for me as a viewer if they just try to keep that model with a different dinosaur replacing Cherry. I love reading the Players' Tribune articles. And any behind-the-scenes NHL stuff focusing on management or players' experiences interests me. They could get me watching stuff like that. For a while, of course. Everything has a shelf life. Which is also something HNIC and hockey in general never seem to have understood. "Tradition" is not something that is going to sell like it used to. You have to be constantly innovative and offer up something fresh and interesting in today's marketplace.

l8r,
Gerry

[Chuck]

I liked it when Coach's Corner was considered a Leaf broadcast asset before it morphed into being National filler time. Just having first intermission player interviews and the 2nd intermission segment where 3 or 4 sportsmedia reps would comment on possible player moves, coaches on the hotseat etc, would work fine with me. Controversy laden or tame, I never had much interest in coach's corner, especially his rants about how players should not display emotion after scoring, and the tendency to blame the player being hit

[jezb...@gmail.com]

A lot of middle aged hab fans with their Depends in a knot I see...lol,too funny.PS Go Bruins.PPS ESPN laid off 300 people because 750,000 subscribers dumped them because of too much Trump bashing,I see Sportsnet losing a ton of subscribers also.

[Jim Bauch]

Oh, I agree with you, which is why I suggested above that the metric the network execs probably look at is how big a dropoff is there between the last few minutes of play in the 1st period to the intermission. My suspicion is that the best an intermission segment can realistically do is limit that dropoff. And since you can get away with more frequent ads during the intermission, that's not nothing -- there's still money to be had from getting the best intermission segments you can, to deter people from switching away. (Stocking up at the fridge might not be so bad if they still show up in the ratings, and advertisers might not mind if they're still within earshot -- might be the best time for a beer ad!)

Jim

[Jim Bauch]

Hey, I'm not the one who showed up in a newsgroup for the first time to whine about an 85-year-old being fired from a job he does badly. Sounds like you're the one who's upset. You must be one of those young snowflakes I keep hearing about from other Trump fans. Go back to your safe space!

Jim

[jezb...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 12:33:16 PM UTC-6, jezb...@gmail.com wrote:

> Sorry Jim but I'm a boomer who has been following this page for over 10 years,I come here for the unintentional laughs.PS I hope we meet you guys in the playoffs...if the habs even make it in.

[gorgo...@gmail.com]

Sure he's not entitled to a guaranteed spot to sprout his opinions. However, would you say the same thing if he was sprouting non hockey opinions you agreed with? All to often in todays societies I hear people, usually the left, constantly trying to deplatform thoughts and opinions, usually small "c" conservative ones. You don't have to like what Cherry says but he has every right to say it. If you dont like it simply change the channel or go open another beer. If enough people stop listening to him then the problem will correct itself. Problem is is that a lot more people want to listen to him in all his warts than don't want to.

[gorgo...@gmail.com]

Well... pretty well every poll on this that I'm aware of has shown a very strong bias toward not firing Chery. A CTV Atlantic poll of 3 to 4 thousand respondants showed 63% had no problem with his comments and he shouldn't have been fired. Another 15-20 or so % say he should apologize but not be fired. The remaining mid 20's% wanted him fired. Another radio station here in NS had a 70-30 ratio in favor of not firing him. I most certainly do not think 70 to 80% of the population are a bunch of racist bigots. However, essentially EVERY media article I've read or clip I've heard, have presented the impression that, by far, the greatest percentage of Canadians want him fired. This is the reality of modern day Canada and why there is such an undertow of anger within the silent majority.

[Gerry]

On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 4:27:27 PM UTC-5, gorgo...@gmail.com wrote:
> Sure he's not entitled to a guaranteed spot to sprout his opinions. However, would you say the same thing if he was sprouting non hockey opinions you agreed with? All to often in todays societies I hear people, usually the left, constantly trying to deplatform thoughts and opinions, usually small "c" conservative ones. You don't have to like what Cherry says but he has every right to say it. If you dont like it simply change the channel or go open another beer. If enough people stop listening to him then the problem will correct itself. Problem is is that a lot more people want to listen to him in all his warts than don't want to.

But if his bosses don't like it... it's not about us changing the channel. I've been changing the channel for 20 years. But after this latest slip it's his bosses that opted to remove him. It's not like us radical lefties all got together and sacked him. If we had that power he'd have been gone long ago, right?

Probably if this was his first and only slip, he could have survived it. And if his show had stayed relevant to modern hockey in any fashion they'd have done what they always did in the past and overlooked it. But the combination of his past history of bigotry PLUS the outdated monotony of his schtick culminated in this. Even still they gave him a chance to apologize and keep his job. But he refused, thankfully.

His time was simply up. Society evolves. As difficult as it might be to believe that in the current schismatic political environment. Sooner or later the inevitable wheel of progress will turn and these old voices will disappear. It'll be the same with most of the other issues that seem to be at the heart of the current divides. You can't deny climate change when you're under water, you can't talk about immigration when there are no more borders... you may say I'm a dreamer... but all this nonsense will eventually pass. Or at least be replaced with new things for us to try to evolve from. Like all those Alpha Centaurians coming over, enjoying our milk, honey, and plentiful oxygen. You'd think they'd have the common decency to wear a green badge on every 500th stardate to commemorate the Terran Federation's victory over the marauding Spican invaders... but nooooo...

l8r,
Gerry

[Jim Bauch]

On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 1:27:27 PM UTC-8, gorgo...@gmail.com wrote:
> Sure he's not entitled to a guaranteed spot to sprout his opinions. However, would you say the same thing if he was sprouting non hockey opinions you agreed with? All to often in todays societies I hear people, usually the left, constantly trying to deplatform thoughts and opinions, usually small "c" conservative ones. You don't have to like what Cherry says but he has every right to say it. If you dont like it simply change the channel or go open another beer. If enough people stop listening to him then the problem will correct itself. Problem is is that a lot more people want to listen to him in all his warts than don't want to.

I'll try not to repeat too much of Gerry's response. I'll just add:

1) If I agreed with Cherry's non-hockey opinions, I would still (a) think that he's a lousy and inarticulate spokesperson and not someone I'd want representing or advocating for my views; and (b) think it's an odd fit for an intermission show. I found it rather odd several years ago when Bob Costas used his Sunday Night Football slot to express gun control views with which I fully agreed, and I was not surprised to see him eased out of that role soon after. That's not to say that I'm a strict "stick to sports" guy. I loved Deadspin and am mourning its demise, but a lot of their "non-sports" stuff was still fairly sports-adjacent, and as a commentary website they served a different role than an in-game broadcast segment.

2) Regardless, it is not a free speech issue for reasons amply stated already. If you want to test my consistency on this, we have a convenient example. As I just said, I'm pissed off that the private equity company that bought Deadspin fired and drove off all of its writers, but I don't claim it's an abridgement of the writers' free speech. The private equity douchebags bought Deadspin, it's theirs to ruin if that's what they want to do, the writers aren't entitled to any particular outlet.

3) As I said in previous posts, I already did change the channel. (Or just never watch the CBC telecast at all. Or forward through Cherry if I DVR'd an east coast game. Etc.) Frankly, I have no particular stake in Cherry's firing, other than that I suppose it's probably a good thing that immigrant Canadians will be able to watch the intermission without fear of being smeared as unpatriotic. But I suspect most immigrants either already avoided Cherry or are made of pretty tough stuff and just laughed at the aging sideshow clown. Oh, and I guess there's now a chance he'll be replaced by someone I actually want to listen to, which would be a very very small benefit.

4) Opinion polls aren't really the relevant measure here. It's a business, not a democracy. If Cherry drives off even just a fraction of the audience who would otherwise sit through an intermission segment, then he's bad for business. If sponsors don't want to be associated with him any more, then he's bad for business. Sportsnet sees the internal numbers, and they made their decision. If you consider yourself a "small-c conservative," you ought to respect the market's decision here.

5) I don't really want to get into a broader, left vs. right argument about this, but I'll just say that in my experience, there are lots of people all over the political spectrum who have confused or inconsistent views on free speech. I'm dubious of claims that one "side" engages in different tactics than the other, unless they're backed by comprehensive data. Because we can trade anecdotes all day: some liberals called for a boycott of Chick-fil-A for being anti-gay, and some conservatives called for a boycott of Starbucks for persecuting Christians with "happy holidays." And so on.

Jim

[gorgo...@gmail.com]

I must say I can't say I disagree with much of what you and Gerry have said although I needed to have a thesaurus to understand all of Gerrys. I too have not agreed often with a lot of what Grapes says and his pro Leafs and Bruins gibberish really irked me. However, I still enjoyed listening to him and usually tuned in to CC. He's getting on, doesn't need the money and perhaps its not such a bad thing he's now gone. Would be nice if it were on better terms. My biggest concern, by far, is the deplatforming, politically correct component in this whole affair. Like many have said, Cherry is entitled to his opinion and his right to be wrong without for being fired for it. He may truly believe that a higher proportion of immigrants shun wearing poppies. If he really believes this than he's entitled to state it. Has anyone proved him wrong or right with hard data? Maybe he is right. As for me, my suspicion is that its not an immigrant thing its a young people thing in that the young, especially millenials, do not recognize the significance of Remembrance Day as much as older folk. Toronto and Mississauga have a higher immigrant population as well as younger demographic thus he mistakenly ascribed the poppie shun to the wrong demographic. Doesn't matter to me other than I see no problem with him throwing it out there. Remember back when Jimmy the Greek was crucified and fired for saying something along the lines of blacks being naturally better athletes? In some atheltic aspects he is right. Just look at NBA rosters. Why can't you discuss these things without the politically correct gestapo knocking down your door.

[Gerry]

On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 10:16:15 AM UTC-5, gorgo...@gmail.com wrote:
> I must say I can't say I disagree with much of what you and Gerry have said although I needed to have a thesaurus to understand all of Gerrys. I too have not agreed often with a lot of what Grapes says and his pro Leafs and Bruins gibberish really irked me. However, I still enjoyed listening to him and usually tuned in to CC. He's getting on, doesn't need the money and perhaps its not such a bad thing he's now gone. Would be nice if it were on better terms. My biggest concern, by far, is the deplatforming, politically correct component in this whole affair. Like many have said, Cherry is entitled to his opinion and his right to be wrong without for being fired for it. He may truly believe that a higher proportion of immigrants shun wearing poppies. If he really believes this than he's entitled to state it. Has anyone proved him wrong or right with hard data? Maybe he is right. As for me, my suspicion is that its not an immigrant thing its a young people thing in that the young, especially millenials, do not recognize the significance of Remembrance Day as much as older folk. Toronto and Mississauga have a higher immigrant population as well as younger demographic thus he mistakenly ascribed the poppie shun to the wrong demographic. Doesn't matter to me other than I see no problem with him throwing it out there. Remember back when Jimmy the Greek was crucified and fired for saying something along the lines of blacks being naturally better athletes? In some atheltic aspects he is right. Just look at NBA rosters. Why can't you discuss these things without the politically correct gestapo knocking down your door.

He's on Coach's Corner on a hockey broadcast. I don't think anybody needs his opinion on these broader societal issues. He may or many not be qualified to talk about modern NHL hockey as a professional commentator. Probably he used to be. But he's certainly not qualified to talk about anything else in a professional capacity. If he wanted to come here or some other internet forum and throw his uninformed voice into the mix, by all means, he's welcome to do so. He also has the financial means to try to kickstart his own platform if he feels that passionately about anything. But again, there's just no reason his employer needs to back him straying off topic like that if they don't agree with his opinion.

I don't think the poppy discussion is necessarily out of place - in some other forum. I wore a poppy some days, didn't some other days, just depending on when the last time was that mine fell off or whether I actually had coins in my pocket, which is increasingly rare these days. For years with toddlers in arms, I gave up on the poppy as a safety hazard. Maybe immigrants or child-rearing age groups display fewer poppies than others, who knows. Don Cherry DOESN'T KNOW either. He's just throwing out anecdotes. With a clear prejudice against immigrants implicit in the way he expressed it. He picked the wrong forum to try to bring his views up, that's all. No "politically-correct gestapo" would break down his doors if he did it on his own time or his own dime. Or they might try, but with no consequences. He simply isn't OWED a platform on HNIC for his social biases. There's no deplatforming of a platform that never existed in the first place. He can go write a rant on some Alt-Right website if he wants. The platforms for his societal views are absolutely existent. He'll be welcomed as a hero and martyr there if he wants. People will lap up his uninformed dog-whistling. He has all the freedom anybody could ask for to express his views. Without getting paid by SportsNet and their sponsors for it.

l8r,
Gerry

[Jim Bauch]

On Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 7:16:15 AM UTC-8, gorgo...@gmail.com wrote:
> Like many have said, Cherry is entitled to his opinion and his right to be wrong without for being fired for it.

Many may have said it, but they are wrong. Certainly wrong if they are speaking of current law. Even in Canada, you can certainly be fired for insulting some of your employer's customers on the employer's own media platform! And I have a hard time understanding any argument that the law should be different in such cases: would you really say that Sports Net has no recourse if an on-air personality starts yelling that hockey sucks and everyone who watches it is a moron, and the sponsors who run ads on this broadcast are all corrupt?

This is not an instance of someone being fired for off-duty, away-from-work comments that have no conceivable bearing on their ability to do their job. There I have some sympathy, and at least in Canada there may be some legal protection.

>He may truly believe that a higher proportion of immigrants shun wearing poppies. If he really believes this than he's entitled to state it.

He's "entitled" to say it. He's apparently still standing by those comments in various interviews, so he's still saying it. He's not entitled to national airtime on CBC to say it, any more than you or I are entitled to our own intermission show.

<snip>

>Remember back when Jimmy the Greek was crucified and fired for saying something along the lines of blacks being naturally better athletes?

Well, first, Jimmy said more than just that, though. He also said that if blacks “take coaching, as I think everyone wants them to, there is not going to be anything left for the white people.” See https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-01-17-sp-36803-story.html

And second: yeah, what about it? CBS decided it did not want to be associated with those views, and fired him.

>In some atheltic aspects he is right. Just look at NBA rosters.

Yeah, not a very compelling argument in my view. The people who used to offer that argument were usually the same people who insisted that blacks couldn't be coaches, or NFL quarterbacks. It was just "obvious" to them, and anyone who suggested that maybe there was a teensy bit of racism involved in not giving blacks the opportunities to fill those positions was dismissed as an out-of-touch, PC-obsessed liberal. Or the "there aren't many blacks in hockey because their ankles aren't strong enough to skate well" -- I seriously heard people claim that with a straight face in my childhood.

>Why can't you discuss these things without the politically correct gestapo knocking down your door.

You know, I give you credit for being generally civil in this discussion, but hyperbole like that doesn't help your argument. Nobody is knocking down anybody's door. Don Cherry has not been arrested. His millions have not been taken away. He could probably have a successful podcast, YouTube channel, instagram feed, whatever, if he chooses to get his opinions out that way. He's just, again, not entitled to a segment on someone else's TV show, and not entitled to be free from criticism.

You can state your opinion, but you can't dictate how others react. Cherry is allowed (in the many forums open to him) to angrily claim that immigrants don't wear poppies; immigrants are allowed to angrily call him a full of shit racist.

You can get angry when people call Cherry or Jimmy the Greek a racist, yet you feel free to compare other people to the Gestapo. And you ARE free to do so! And I'm free to call that lazy hyperbole, and you're free to say whatever you're going to say in response, and on it goes. That's not suppression of free speech, that's free speech in action.

Jim

[gorgo...@gmail.com]

Coachs Corner IS an opinion piece and always has been. Yes DC drifts into non hockey topics but given that hockey is intrinsically interwoven into Canadian culture thats ok with many. In any event, I saw yet another poll today and like ALL the others, Cherry support wins the day: 79% wanted him not fired; 18% wanted him turfed; 3% were indifferent. Pretty strong result and it's been a week. I'm absolutely certain 79% of our populace are not racist bigots so there are a hell of a lot of even keel Canadians that think along my train of thought as opposed to yours and I'll leave it at that.

[Chuck]

Look back at the history of 1st period intermission segments, Howie Meeker was popular because he was Howie Meeker. Same with Cherry being Cherry. Characters who had fan bases due to their personality. Will coach’s corner work with any former coach spouting strictly hockey analysis comments? Maybe, but not the same way it was with Cherry. People were drawn by his comments skirting controversy. Can they repeat that formula? Not likely when any potential replacement would pull their punches rather risk a very short time employed on coach’s corner. Can “safe” draw interest in Coach’s Corner after the bar set by Cherry

[Jim Bauch]

On Sunday, November 17, 2019 at 4:45:42 PM UTC-8, gorgo...@gmail.com wrote:
> Coachs Corner IS an opinion piece and always has been. Yes DC drifts into non hockey topics but given that hockey is intrinsically interwoven into Canadian culture thats ok with many. In any event, I saw yet another poll today and like ALL the others, Cherry support wins the day: 79% wanted him not fired; 18% wanted him turfed; 3% were indifferent. Pretty strong result and it's been a week. I'm absolutely certain 79% of our populace are not racist bigots so there are a hell of a lot of even keel Canadians that think along my train of thought as opposed to yours and I'll leave it at that.

Just to clarify:

I believe that someone can say a racist thing and not be "a racist" in the general sense. In fact, most of us screw up once in a while and say something racist (or sexist, homophobic, etc.). Now, in Cherry's particular case, I think he's built up enough of a track record that I am comfortable calling him a racist.

I certainly don't think that anybody who disagrees with Cherry's firing is a racist. I wouldn't conclude that even of the subset of people who disagree with the firing because they affirmatively approved of this particular comment, and there are plenty of other reasons why people may disagree with the firing (e.g. "it was bad but not bad enough to fire him," "nobody takes Cherry seriously anyway so let it slide," "you knew what you were getting with Cherry, why fire him for being who you knew he was," the weird free speech argument).

So I'm not claiming that 79% of Canadians are "racist bigots."

As for the "fact" that 79% of Canadians allegedly agree with you instead of me, <shrug>. Don't care.

Jim

[gorgo...@gmail.com]

Very good points. They will be huge shoes to fill if someone tries to take over. Some are conjecturing Burke. His combative tendancies may be of help but he comes across as much more unlikeable than Cherry IMO. He certainly knows hockey and is quick to be blunt and shoot straight but his presentation just may get old too quickly. I can't really see anyone out there else unless they try to drastically change the format say... perhaps to more comedy directed.

[Jim Bauch]

On Sunday, November 17, 2019 at 6:44:45 PM UTC-8, Chuck wrote:
> Look back at the history of 1st period intermission segments, Howie Meeker was popular because he was Howie Meeker. Same with Cherry being Cherry. Characters who had fan bases due to their personality. Will coach’s corner work with any former coach spouting strictly hockey analysis comments? Maybe, but not the same way it was with Cherry. People were drawn by his comments skirting controversy. Can they repeat that formula? Not likely when any potential replacement would pull their punches rather risk a very short time employed on coach’s corner. Can “safe” draw interest in Coach’s Corner after the bar set by Cherry

Interesting question, Chuck.

I think it's important to remember that Cherry wasn't "Don Cherry" at first. His performance evolved, or de-volved depending on your preference.

I dug up an old Coach's Corner clip from 1981. It's so old that it's not just pre-Ron McLean, it's pre-Dave Hodge!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XODKdjbV2pc

There's no shouting. No "you kids out there." No political or other non-hockey comments of any sort. The only "controversial" thing he says is to criticize Gretzky for whining about being shadowed, and he balances that with some praise of Gretzky's abilities. (And in 1981, it was not that unusual to hear criticism of Gretzky.) He discusses some actual X's and O's regarding how to defend against the behind-the-net play.

His broadcast partner actually has to prod him to talk about the Leafs, because he was happy discussing the Oilers! And even his clothes are fairly ordinary -- other than the high collar, there's nothing unusual by 1981 standards.

Now maybe Cherry wouldn't have become the huge figure he became without some or even all of the shtick he later developed. But I think there's a middle ground available, between being a cartoon character and being a dull-as-dirt recycler of conventional wisdom. And I know because Don Cherry used to occupy that middle ground!

I would say the keys are to hire someone who:
(1) isn't beholden to the hockey establishment. Nobody who is just killing time before his next coaching/GM gig. Nobody who is too close to the league office or the NHLPA (sorry, Glen Healy!) Nobody who is a beat reporter who has to be careful not to offend potential sources. You want someone who is free to call bullshit on the league, the union, any particular team, coach, or player.

(2) has some charisma and speaking ability (which, as Cherry showed, doesn't need to be the Queen's english -- I just mean someone dynamic).

(3) shows some signs of independent thought on hockey matters.

(4) isn't trying too hard to be the next Don Cherry. Please don't get some "hot take" artist from sports talk radio who is deliberately cultivating controversy for controversy's sake. Spare us the silly costumes. Make it a clean break.

Jim

[Gerry]

Didn't Ron McLean say this weekend that the Coach's Corner format is basically dead now. If they do anything in the meantime while awaiting a light bulb to go off over some network exec's head, it may just be roaming around to a few viewpoints from the internal cohort on staff?

Anyway, I don't really want to hear Howie Meeker pick a play to telestrate, nor the the faux-Canadiana schtick Cherry developed, nor Burke's latest more erudite treatise on truculence, nor some other hot take artist... I'd like watch something different, something player-centric. Just do a little bio or interest story about a player or prospect or somebody in the game - but not a total puff piece, something that has some real element of interest to it. Cover the tough issues. Player's Tribune articles are the best reads in hockey. Dig in about substance abuse or PEDs, concussions, junior unions, something Fifth Estate of hockey-esque maybe.

l8r,
Gerry

[Chuck]

I have little faith that they will come up wth anything fresh and original. I want neither Burke or the hockey equivalent of Pat Tabler

[Gerry]

On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 12:57:28 PM UTC-5, Jim Bauch wrote:
>
> Just to clarify:
>
> I believe that someone can say a racist thing and not be "a racist"
> in the general sense. In fact, most of us screw up once in a while
> and say something racist (or sexist, homophobic, etc.). Now, in Cherry's
> particular case, I think he's built up enough of a track record that I am
> comfortable calling him a racist.

I'm not sure if Don Cherry the human is or isn't, actually. It probably could go either way... he could be even worse in real life in the comfort of his own home than on TV, or he could be better in real life and just get carried away with the character he plays on TV. Who knows. But anyway, the character he plays on TV has definitely made a habit of pandering to racist sympathies... he doesn't intentionally mangle Russian names or put down Swedes or francophones or make the generalizations he does by complete accident. He's playing on unfounded racial stereotypes, tapping into the undercurrent of bigotry and intolerance in society. Of course he'll also turn around and emphasize how he loves Player X, DESPITE being from Ethnic background Y, because hey, that boy has embraced Good Ol' Canadian Value Z. Which supposedly proves he isn't actually a total racist, right?

So sure, soften it up a bit and call him "bigoted" or "intolerant" instead of calling him overtly racist if one prefers. He's probably not a neo-Nazi or in the KKK if that's one's threshold.

> As for the "fact" that 79% of Canadians allegedly agree with you
> instead of me, <shrug>. Don't care.

I'd be curious about the demographics of that poll result. 80% sounds about right... from a general sample around the rinks. Which I don't think is likely a very representative sample of society at large. Society at large may not really pay attention or care about Don Cherry enough to click a button on a website. He's yesterday's news to the majority who skimmed the headline, said yeah, sounds like just desserts were served, and went on with their lives. Most people don't watch Cherry anyway, so it's not that big a deal to most people that he's gone. It's only in our hockey-centric echo chambers that it was every really a thing (and still is!).

If >33% of the whole voting public of Canada thinks he shouldn't have been fired, once properly informed of who he even is and what he said, well, that would alarm me.

l8r,
Gerry

[Jim Bauch]

On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 11:29:37 AM UTC-8, Gerry wrote:
> On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 12:57:28 PM UTC-5, Jim Bauch wrote:
> >
> > Just to clarify:
> >
> > I believe that someone can say a racist thing and not be "a racist"
> > in the general sense. In fact, most of us screw up once in a while
> > and say something racist (or sexist, homophobic, etc.). Now, in Cherry's
> > particular case, I think he's built up enough of a track record that I am
> > comfortable calling him a racist.
>
> I'm not sure if Don Cherry the human is or isn't, actually. It probably could go either way... he could be even worse in real life in the comfort of his own home than on TV, or he could be better in real life and just get carried away with the character he plays on TV. Who knows. But anyway, the character he plays on TV has definitely made a habit of pandering to racist sympathies... he doesn't intentionally mangle Russian names or put down Swedes or francophones or make the generalizations he does by complete accident. He's playing on unfounded racial stereotypes, tapping into the undercurrent of bigotry and intolerance in society. Of course he'll also turn around and emphasize how he loves Player X, DESPITE being from Ethnic background Y, because hey, that boy has embraced Good Ol' Canadian Value Z. Which supposedly proves he isn't actually a total racist, right?
>
> So sure, soften it up a bit and call him "bigoted" or "intolerant" instead of calling him overtly racist if one prefers. He's probably not a neo-Nazi or in the KKK if that's one's threshold.
>

Yeah, I almost added a paragraph about this before, so I might as well say it now: although I try to reserve the label "racist" for persistent patterns of non-trivial racist behavior, I also have no patience for those who insist it can only be applied to people who hate every single member of the race in question. I have no doubt that there are hundreds of photos of Don Cherry smiling with an immigrant fan, or videos of him praising Jarome Iginla or some minority race armed forces member. There's a reason why "oh, he's one of the GOOD ones" became a cliche.

> > As for the "fact" that 79% of Canadians allegedly agree with you
> > instead of me, <shrug>. Don't care.
>
> I'd be curious about the demographics of that poll result. 80% sounds about right... from a general sample around the rinks. Which I don't think is likely a very representative sample of society at large. Society at large may not really pay attention or care about Don Cherry enough to click a button on a website. He's yesterday's news to the majority who skimmed the headline, said yeah, sounds like just desserts were served, and went on with their lives. Most people don't watch Cherry anyway, so it's not that big a deal to most people that he's gone. It's only in our hockey-centric echo chambers that it was every really a thing (and still is!).
>
> If >33% of the whole voting public of Canada thinks he shouldn't have been fired, once properly informed of who he even is and what he said, well, that would alarm me.
>

I'm sort of curious about the origin of that poll and how the question was worded, because it seems a little high, but there's no doubt that Cherry was, and in many corners remains, a popular figure.

Jim

[gorgo...@gmail.com]

The poll in question was one circulating through Facebook. Had 3 questions that were very clear. Wish I could find it again and screen grab it but ... Im too lazy to look that deep. In any event, the 80% is only marginally above the high 60's and low 70's support for Cherry that I saw in a couple of other polls. Equally important to the high Cherry approval number was the low fire him numbers. They ranged between teens to low 20's. If you eliminate the don't care or don't know percentage than it roughly pans out to 80-85% in support of Cherry to a 15-20% against. Even if you temper this, as Gerry suggested, to a bias that the surveys were only bothered with by the hockey loving crowd, these are very strong numbers. I would also add that hockey in Canada touches a very large segment of our population.

[gorgo...@gmail.com]

I found the poll in question. Its on news.yahoo.ca. I have a scheen grab of it but don't see anyway on the newsgroup to attach a jpg. Is this possinle?