LotusBlossom wrote:You know what really pissed me off about the whole Bettman thing during the ceremony? In every other final he congratulated the losing team on a winning season. He didn't do that for Vancouver. Maybe perhaps we boo'ed him so loud and proud he didn't feel like he should, but that schmuck should have been diplomatic, done his job and been at least cordial to the Canucks.
That's when I felt the 'fix' was in. What an asshole. I'm sorry, as a commissioner of a professional sports league, you should have a little more subjectivity than that. Classless.
I was thinking.....
Perhaps the Canucks should fully embrace the role of the "villain." Controversy sells, and controversy brings in revenue. Why not become the NBA's version of the Miami Heat? Or UFC's version of Brock Lesnar? Hell - if we play it right, maybe we can become the New York Yankees of the NHL if we string together a few championships.
In all of those examples - those teams/athletes create the highest ratings, fan interest, and revenue. Why couldn't we do the same? Hell - we were the only Canadian team in recent memory to NOT be cheered by the mass majority of Canadians.
Why not go full balls out and become a haven for guys that have been known to play dirty? Bring in Matt Cooke and Jarko Ruutu again. Bring in someone like Sean Avery.
p.s._____________Although I do think there was a "bias" when we played both Chicago and Boston, I think Boston beat us fair and square (although we were severely injured). Outside of Games 3, 4, and possibly a little bit of 5, I don't think the reffing during the finals was tilted. In Game 7, the refs let both teams play and Boston won fair and square. Against Chicago however - I do think that the outcome of the series was drastically altered as a result of the officiating. Canucks should have won that series in 4 or 5. Games 4, 5, and 6, in that series was some of the worst officiating that I had ever seen in my life.