Roll another number for the road
People can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. Fourteen percent of people know that."
-Homer Simpson
The great debate over fighting hockey continues to rage like a tire fire, and now, thanks to a recently released Harris Decima poll, we have some numbers to work with rather than just the opinions of those on both sides of this tilt. I've seen some very valid arguments from both sides over the past few weeks, ranging from Bob McCown's zero-tolerance campaign on Fan 590 to Down Goes Brown's visceral defence of puck-pugilism from a few days back. Mr. Brown also managed to draw Damien Cox into a debate yesterday, after another shocking appearance by Cox in the comments section of his own blog! You can read up on the details here.
Speaking of Mr. Cox, he has been one of the louder opponents of fighting in the NHL, and to his credit he has been making his case for years now and should not be accused, as has been suggested in some circles, of using Don Sanderson's tragic death to boost his case. As Cox rightly points out in The Spin yesterday:
In life and society, it's usually a drastic event that draws people's attention to a problem, and in this case, Sanderson's death surely put to rest for good the old saw that nobody ever gets hurt in a hockey fight.
However, Cox quickly jumped on the Harris Decima poll yesterday in a blog post full of crowing told-you-so's and cowering qualifiers. For example:
Well, that bubble burst today, didn't it? At least to some degree.
A new Harris Decima poll suggests a slim majority of Canadians believe fighting should be taken out of hockey. These kinds of polls depend on what precisely the question asked was, to some degree, and certainly not all those who responded are diehard NHL fans.
That slim majority that Cox cites - which has burst the bubble of the pro-fighting crowd (to some degree) - is a slender 54%, but it is indisputably a majority. While Cox does point out that polls like this don't really tell the whole story, it doesn't stop him from drawing a number of conclusions, namely:
Interestingly, on the weekend NHL commissioner Gary Bettman argued that his league's fans love fighting and want it to stay. This poll, however, suggests that even in hockey-mad Canada, keeping fighting in the game might actually be costing the NHL, and hockey in general, fans and paying customers.
A quick look at the poll suggests that Cox may be on to something here:
Overall, 54% of respondents said they thought fighting should be banned from the NHL, while 40% said it should not be banned.
However, those who follow the game very closely hold a very different view. Among these respondents, 68% believe that fighting should stay in the NHL, while 31% prefer too [sic] see it banned.
So, hockey fans overwhelmingly support fighting in the NHL. By a wide margin. Unfortunately the poll does not contain info on how many of the 1000 people polled fall into this category (though I'm sure someone with superior mathematical skills could figure this one out). Cox, however, see these numbers as evidence that the NHL is turning away customers who might be interested in a fight-free league.
The problem is, the poll doesn't ask those people who currently aren't interested in hockey if they would start watching if fighting were removed. It is shocking, but there are a lot of people in this country who just don't give a shit about hockey and probably never will. If we knew that these people enjoyed fight-free hockey (Silver Stick tournaments, old VHS tapes of those Original Six old-timers games) then Cox might be on to something, but it seems to me like the hockey market in Canada is tapped out.The NHL seems to agree, since their interest over the past two decades has been growing the game in the USA, not Canada. If there was more money to be made in Canada, I'm sure that the NHL would be all over it (though, these are the same people who brought us glowing pucks, three point games, and Hockey Night in Phoenix).
Cox's suggestion that this poll disputes Gary Bettman's belief that hockey fans like fighting also suffers if you take a closer look at the poll:
Older Canadians are much more likely than younger ones to want to see fighting banned form the NHL. A strong majority of those over the age of 50 (65%) believe fighting should be banned, while 29% think it should stay. Among those under the age of 35, the results are almost reversed, with 60% believing fighting should stay in the game, while 35% want it banned.
When Bettman says that hockey fans enjoy fighting, I can only assume that he means the fans that are most important to the league (ie, the ones that advertisers care about). Sure, a slim majority of all Canadians would like to see it removed from the game, but the NHL's most important demographic (under 35's) overwhelmingly support the scraps.
I personally am not sure where I stand on fighting, and I think this meandering post really reflects my indecision. Godd Till did a good job of summing up this limbo the other day: I kinda know it is wrong, but I never change the channel when a fight breaks out, and I was often guilty of standing on my feet when Peterborough Petes great Darryl Flowers started kicking the crap out of some poor bastard. So, though I fall somewhere in the middle, I am fascinated by this debate and think that this recent poll provides an interesting snapshot of how hockey fans (and others) feel about this subject. Especially once you get past Damien Cox's cherrypicked figures.
Some other interesting notes from the poll:
-Homer Simpson
The great debate over fighting hockey continues to rage like a tire fire, and now, thanks to a recently released Harris Decima poll, we have some numbers to work with rather than just the opinions of those on both sides of this tilt. I've seen some very valid arguments from both sides over the past few weeks, ranging from Bob McCown's zero-tolerance campaign on Fan 590 to Down Goes Brown's visceral defence of puck-pugilism from a few days back. Mr. Brown also managed to draw Damien Cox into a debate yesterday, after another shocking appearance by Cox in the comments section of his own blog! You can read up on the details here.
Speaking of Mr. Cox, he has been one of the louder opponents of fighting in the NHL, and to his credit he has been making his case for years now and should not be accused, as has been suggested in some circles, of using Don Sanderson's tragic death to boost his case. As Cox rightly points out in The Spin yesterday:
In life and society, it's usually a drastic event that draws people's attention to a problem, and in this case, Sanderson's death surely put to rest for good the old saw that nobody ever gets hurt in a hockey fight.
However, Cox quickly jumped on the Harris Decima poll yesterday in a blog post full of crowing told-you-so's and cowering qualifiers. For example:
For years now, I've argued that a silent majority of Canadians would prefer to take fighting out of hockey.
For
just as many years, I've been shouted down by the pro-fighting crowd,
told to go watch badminton or ballet if I'm not manly enough to like
fighting and don't understand that the vast majority of people love it
and understand it's part of the game.
Well, that bubble burst today, didn't it? At least to some degree.
A new Harris Decima poll suggests a slim majority of Canadians believe fighting should be taken out of hockey. These kinds of polls depend on what precisely the question asked was, to some degree, and certainly not all those who responded are diehard NHL fans.
That slim majority that Cox cites - which has burst the bubble of the pro-fighting crowd (to some degree) - is a slender 54%, but it is indisputably a majority. While Cox does point out that polls like this don't really tell the whole story, it doesn't stop him from drawing a number of conclusions, namely:
Interestingly, on the weekend NHL commissioner Gary Bettman argued that his league's fans love fighting and want it to stay. This poll, however, suggests that even in hockey-mad Canada, keeping fighting in the game might actually be costing the NHL, and hockey in general, fans and paying customers.
A quick look at the poll suggests that Cox may be on to something here:
Overall, 54% of respondents said they thought fighting should be banned from the NHL, while 40% said it should not be banned.
However, those who follow the game very closely hold a very different view. Among these respondents, 68% believe that fighting should stay in the NHL, while 31% prefer too [sic] see it banned.
So, hockey fans overwhelmingly support fighting in the NHL. By a wide margin. Unfortunately the poll does not contain info on how many of the 1000 people polled fall into this category (though I'm sure someone with superior mathematical skills could figure this one out). Cox, however, see these numbers as evidence that the NHL is turning away customers who might be interested in a fight-free league.
The problem is, the poll doesn't ask those people who currently aren't interested in hockey if they would start watching if fighting were removed. It is shocking, but there are a lot of people in this country who just don't give a shit about hockey and probably never will. If we knew that these people enjoyed fight-free hockey (Silver Stick tournaments, old VHS tapes of those Original Six old-timers games) then Cox might be on to something, but it seems to me like the hockey market in Canada is tapped out.The NHL seems to agree, since their interest over the past two decades has been growing the game in the USA, not Canada. If there was more money to be made in Canada, I'm sure that the NHL would be all over it (though, these are the same people who brought us glowing pucks, three point games, and Hockey Night in Phoenix).
Cox's suggestion that this poll disputes Gary Bettman's belief that hockey fans like fighting also suffers if you take a closer look at the poll:
Older Canadians are much more likely than younger ones to want to see fighting banned form the NHL. A strong majority of those over the age of 50 (65%) believe fighting should be banned, while 29% think it should stay. Among those under the age of 35, the results are almost reversed, with 60% believing fighting should stay in the game, while 35% want it banned.
When Bettman says that hockey fans enjoy fighting, I can only assume that he means the fans that are most important to the league (ie, the ones that advertisers care about). Sure, a slim majority of all Canadians would like to see it removed from the game, but the NHL's most important demographic (under 35's) overwhelmingly support the scraps.
I personally am not sure where I stand on fighting, and I think this meandering post really reflects my indecision. Godd Till did a good job of summing up this limbo the other day: I kinda know it is wrong, but I never change the channel when a fight breaks out, and I was often guilty of standing on my feet when Peterborough Petes great Darryl Flowers started kicking the crap out of some poor bastard. So, though I fall somewhere in the middle, I am fascinated by this debate and think that this recent poll provides an interesting snapshot of how hockey fans (and others) feel about this subject. Especially once you get past Damien Cox's cherrypicked figures.
Some other interesting notes from the poll:
- Quebecers and Ontarians are most opposed to fighting (Quebec - 62%-32%, Ontario - 56%-37%) while Albertans are the most punch-happy (52%-41%)
- More women (63%) than men (45%) support removing fighting from the game
- The less money you earn, the more likely you are to support removing fighting (who knew, those Bay Street suits are filling up the lower bowl at the ACC because they want to see scraps)
- Bloc Quebecois supports are most liklely to want fighting removed (70%) followed by Liberals (55%), NDPers (54%) and Conservatives (47%)
86% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
So to sum things up, the fans that are dying off don't want fighting but the ones that represent the demographic that advertisers most want to reach wants more fighting.
Is it really rocket science about why the league says banning fighting is a non-starter?
Also, Cox may have been on the anti-fighting tirade for a long time but when I accuse him of using Don Sanderson's death to advance his agenda I mean that he chooses the aftermath of these kinds of incidents to raise the decibel level on his arguments.
Hey PPP,
I honestly didn't have you in mind when I made that comment, but I really don't have a problem with Cox using this tragedy to advance "his agenda". Cox rightly (for once) points out that a drastic event draw will always draw attention to an issue. I give Cox credit for being consistent in his view (I'm not sure whether he is right or wrong) and can't fault him raising the decibal level when people are listening. I guess what I mean is that I would find it more offensive if Cox all of the sudden jumped on the anti-fighting bandwagon in the days following Sanderson's death, rather than using it to boost an argument that he has long supported.
Defending Cox?!?!? I feel dirty...
I believe the Homer quote is actually "FourFteen percent of people know that."
Here's my unscientifically observational theory: fighting will leave hockey the same way it left the other 3 major sports - only when a significant number of the players are no longer white. How much did the role of race factor into the efforts to eliminate fighting, taunting etc from basketball, football, and even baseball?
Dear Kim,
I didn't think that you meant me specifically since I am far from the only person saying it. I just wanted to clarify why I do it.
The best thing you can say about Cox on the fighting issue is that he is consistent.
Even if fighting is up a little relative to last year, a stat I'd like to see tracked over time is what percentage of players get more than, say, two fighting penalties per season. I'd bet that number is really small and, it seems to me, going down.
Generally, goons fight goons and the way to get fighting out of the league is to stop drafting goons. But goons are still getting drafted and are still getting ice time, so GMs and coaches must consider them to be part of a plan for a winning team, right? It can't be all about what the fans want, because I can't imagine top coaches saying "well, putting this goon out there will hurt our team's chances to win, but will please the fans, so I'll do it".
In conclusion: Goon!