Bruins-Blackhawks Pre-Game Thoughts

As much as I'd like to break things down and explore the ins and outs and every subtle nuance of this series, it is essentially pointless. There has been no steadfast principle that has guided the outcome of the first two games other than in hockey shit happens. Deflections and bad/lucky/fortunate bounces are the lifeblood of the sport. So as opposed to committing myself to the maddening task of the game itself, I'm thinking deeply about the half-assed circus setup around the Stanley Cup Finals.

I was welcomed to ESPN's coverage of the Stanley Cup Finals this morning. I would have laughed had I not been brewing coffee. The coverage lasted the princely sum of five or so minutes (probably less) and Barry Melrose made the most of his scant airtime by rehashing what everyone who follows hockey knows. Some might say this is essential because not all viewers know about the ins and the outs of the series. There's two issues with this. One, people either follow hockey and know what's going on, just want to know who won and the people who'll never care. If you follow hockey you shouldn't be watching ESPN for hockey coverage. They abandon that sport for 99% of the year to cover such valid topics as one of their anchors throwing out the first pitch at a Rays game, which is roughly the equivalent of making employee of the month at a Tampa Burger King. If you only care who won, it's a four second search, a glance at a newspaper or just overhearing people on the train. You don't need the frivolous few moments to find that out. And if you don't care you don't care. People who don't care put on ESPN to be spoon fed LeBron James and Tim Tebow because their Q rating is sky high.

Aside from ESPN and their continually parallel with MTV (MTV is to music what ESPN is to sports), NBC's coverage from a technical standpoint has been fine. Their awful and biased commentary makes me head hurt. Before Game 2 they profiled Andrew Shaw, an agitator the likes of Brad Marchand with practically a fraction of the skill. NBC was trying to set him up as a focal point of the game. Granted, he scored the overtime game winner by deflecting the puck. I'm not knocking him. It was a smart, hockey play. But he in no way deserves that kind of attention. The more he plays the more we'll see how frustrating he is and how bad that style of play is for the image of hockey. 

This isn't the first time a player comparable to Marchand attracted such forced attention from NBC. During the Bruins series with the Flyers in 2011, James Van Riemsdyk became the focal point of NBC's coverage. Marchand and JVR (as he was known, I always preferred RVD honestly) had pretty much the same stats. However, it seemed like he was the second coming of Mike Bossy on broadcasts. The announcers would cackle with excitement as JVR hit the ice. The Flyers were promptly swept and JVR was shipped to Toronto.

Why do the Bruins incur such vitriol from NBC? Eddie Olyczek and Pierre McGuire can barely contain their hatred. Milbury can barely do it, but everybody gets his venom. Despite how awful of a GM he was. Jeremy Roenick gives the Bruins credit and he was the Boston native who famously said he would never play for the Bruins. So why do the two most (regrettably) heard from voices show the team so little respect? Is it because NBC wants a team of stars to shine? Could it be that the team first dynamic of the Bruins doesn't allow for individuals to step up and take the reigns and therefore minimalists their marketability? Could it be the hatred of Jeremy Jacobs? Who knows? I just know half the game I'm nervous and the other half I'm angered by the broadcast.