Dangerous, Dirty, and Unfun

In the same week that this happens, we learn from the Chronicle of Higher Education that the NCAA wants to pass a rule to make it easier for corporate sponsors to use college athletes’ images in advertising.

Existing rules generally bar companies from using an athlete’s name, image, or “likeness” in advertisements, promotions, or other ventures. The proposed measure would allow corporate sponsors to feature game clips of current athletes in their TV ads, for instance, as long as the ads include the name of the athlete’s institution. It would also allow companies to publicize sales events at which college athletes would be present.

Don’t worry if you clicked through and didn’t notice the bit about college athletes being compensated. That bit doesn’t exist.

Now, I understand that the relationship between athletes, their schools, the NCAA, and the NCAA’s corporate sponsors is more nuanced than “athletes should/should not be paid.” It’s too long a discussion to have here, so let’s not get too far into it. (Although it’s always important to remember the story of Jeremy Bloom, the guy who lost his football eligibility because he accepted endorsement money as a skier.)

The fact is, the college athletes are “compensated” in the form of scholarships, room, and board. Outside of that, they don’t make any money from the licensing deals their schools arrange, they don’t make any money from the corporate sponsorships negotiated by their schools, they don’t make any money from the bowl games and the tournament appearances they lead their teams to. In addition to that, they’re forbidden from taking money from third-party boosters (witness Cam Newton’s plight above), they can’t make money from their fame in the form of selling memorabilia (witness the plight of Terrelle Pryor and his teammates), and they can’t make money from their skills in other sports (witness Jeremy Bloom.)

And they certainly can’t make any money from media uses of their likeness. But there IS money to be made there, so you know someone is going to try to make it. Witness this new NCAA proposal.

I’m not sure if y’all are familiar with hockey, but about a week and a half ago, the Boston Bruins’ Marc Savard was knocked out for the season by a cheap-shot, blindside elbow from the Pittsburgh Penguins’ Matt Cooke. It was a self-evidently dirty play. I’m not here to talk about that. I’m watching fans walking home from the Garden out my window as I write, after the Bruins’ first meeting with the Penguins since that savage hit. I don’t know what happened, and whatever did transpire is immaterial to my argument.

I’m here to talk about the palpable bloodlust among Bruins fans for the chance to get some revenge against Pittsburgh. This judgment is based on my completely unscientific reading of various website comments and Facebook status updates today, but considering Sports Illustrated’s hockey writer was lamenting the NHL’s lack of disciplinary action against Cooke, and I’ve been reading stories about this game on non-sports blogs, I think it’s safe to say that some type of retaliatory vengeance was on the mind of many Bruins fans today.

If you take a step back from your ingrained understanding of the game of hockey, it should be a little strange that we’re even having this discussion. After the hit on Savard, the outcry against Cooke was loud, sustained, sincere, and justified. Hockey is a physical game, but there’s no place for headshots like the one Savard suffered. But look where that’s gotten us: an expectation that somehow, the Bruins would retaliate. Would they go after Cooke? Would they go after Sidney Crosby, the Penguins’ star? Would retaliation take the form of a similar cheap hit, or a gloves-on-the-ice brawl?

Even that Farber column I linked to above, written before tonight’s game even took place, takes retaliation for granted: the NHL could have prevented the violence that will inevitably occur, but failed! Now the Bruins have no choice!

But of course they had a choice. Cycles of violence are called cycles of violence for a reason, whether they occur on the streets or on the ice. It’s the same principle. What would be the consequence of the Bruins collectively saying “We’re going to stop this. It was an unfortunate thing that happened to our star, but two wrongs don’t make a right.” Would other teams find them to be soft? Possibly, but what’s the consequence of THAT? More cheap shots? I doubt it, given that Cooke’s hit has put those types of hits on the NHL’s disciplinary radar. Generally rougher play? Fine. If it’s within the confines of the rules, I’m sure the Bruins are capable of defending themselves. I’m approaching this as a rational person, of course, and not as a hockey player, or a hardcore hockey fan. Assuming retaliation, though, is a very pernicious fact of NHL life.

And think of what that assumption entails. Bruins fans, and a good portion of the hockey world, booed Cooke lustily. And then what did they, certainly in some cases, cheer for, and in other cases tacitly accept? Some sort of similar hit against a Penguins player. It shouldn’t be hard for someone with self-awareness to realize the hypocrisy at work. As one of our great philosophers has reminded us this season, what if it were you hanging up on this wall? Hockey fans should know better.