Jim Kelley

Jim Kelley writes regularly on the NHL for Sportsnet.ca and can be heard on Primetime Sports on the FAN590.

Earlier this week, Globe and Mail columnist Roy MacGregor took a reasoned look at broadcast hockey analysis and determined it was not just cliché ridden, but burdened with a language that even hockey fans are hard pressed to understand.

MacGregor also pointed out that there is a dearth of input from non-North American voices, particularly in light of the fact that hockey, even National Hockey League hockey, has become a world game yet still lacks insight from analysts who might have a different perspective, say from Europe or Russia or the Scandinavian countries.

He also pointed out the position appears overrun with failed coaches, failed general managers, a plethora of positional players (mostly goaltenders) all of whom seem intent on offering nothing but a defence of the position, the rules that impact their position and the idea that goalies need some sort of defence beyond the ridiculous amount of protection they wear.

Now it's fair to say that I don't disagree and in the interest of full disclosure I'll also tell you that MacGregor is a longtime colleague and a friend. I'll accept any criticism -- wrongheaded as it may be -- that I'm defending the opinion of a member of what has increasingly become a small and select group of white, well-educated, sometimes pompous wordsmiths that are not above protecting and defending their own from the intrusion of inclusion brought on via the advent of the blogosphere and other "new" media concepts.

But I do have an argument that says MacGregor didn't go far enough, limiting his argument to television and some radio analysis. He left untouched the bane of our professional existence; the so-called "expert."

There are countless examples of this both in sport and in general news reporting but I'll centre my argument on just one of the more recent and egregious examples.

This would be the "insights" of one Ehor Boyanowski, reported this week in The Province to be a professor of criminology at SFU (that's Simon Fraser University for those of you who don't live in BC but might read The Province anyway). In response to some questions put forth by reporter Kent Spencer Professor Boyanowski unleashed a series of statements regarding Abbotsford Heat coach Jim Playfair and his well circulated (via You Tube) tirade against referee Jamie Koharski.

In his screed against Playfair's admittedly out of character actions, Boyanowski revealed that the actions of the former Calgary Flames coach "will be added to the top ten tantrums in sport," that it was a "jackass" stunt and that it will "haunt him" (we presume forever, but the good professor does not appear to provide a time frame). He also said it was "clownish behaviour" and an "outrageous performance" and that "it was everything that one shouldn't do at a hockey game," that Playfair "has lost a lot of face" and that it's "humiliating."

Well thank you Dr. Watson. Do you have any other keen insights for which only a person of high academic standing might shed on such a life changing and socially impactful event?

Not to demean the good professor who simply did what a great many of us do every day and that's answer a question not with insight or even the results of a sincere study of the incident or the individual involved but with an opinion, but do we really need your "expertise?"

After all, it's reasonable to assume you have no knowledge of Mr. Playfair's life, career, or the elements that led to what appears to be a momentary meltdown. It's fair to presume that you have never had or been exposed to a high-level coaching job in either the NHL or the American Hockey League where Playfair is currently employed and I would even hazard a guess that short of being up for tenure you've never experienced the kind of relentless pressure that comes from being a head coach in a win-or-be-gone environment.

Now I do understand from the article that you have social-psychology background and once studied the infamous Todd Bertuzzi-Steve Moore incident but with all due respect: so what.

I have a background in English literature and once studied information sciences with an eye toward mastering the Dewey Decimal System, but that hardly makes me an "expert" in either field. I could also honestly tell you that if someone was silly enough to call me and ask me what the social impact of Richard Russo's work via "Empire Falls" and "Straight Man" is or even how to classify his works for the library I would decline simply because I'm not qualified.

I am a sportswriter. I do like to read Russo and others and I can find my way around a library classification system with relative ease, but when it comes to rendering an "expert" opinion, at least for the masses, I tend to limit myself to a point of view of a league or a person in it that league I have covered for over 30 years.

Now admittedly I could offer up a discourse in say the arcane elements of angling for a department chairmanship so that I might have more time to write and fewer classes to teach? Trust me, I have opinions on that, but they are baseless in terms of being knowledgeable about the political machinations involved in university tenure and responsibility. To put it another way: who would care?

Now again, I don't blame you for answering the phone or the knock on the door from a reporter soliciting your opinion, but how and when did we get to the point where we are led to believe that anyone with a few initials at the end of their name is somehow worthy of "expert" status?

Look, Playfair "lost it" for a total of about 30 seconds. He broke two hockey sticks, cursed and discarded his suit jacket in a reckless manner. I'm not arguing his actions don't have consequences (he has already been fined), but he didn't hit anyone. He didn't leave the bench in search of an altercation. As best I can determine he didn't even rise to the level of a John Tortorella post-game session with the media regarding "cursing."

Seems to me a criminology or any other professor might be able to recognize this doesn't rise to the level of "humiliating.” Embarrassing, maybe, but it's hardly a big deal in sports or in life. No crime was committed, not even close and no matter if you study the Bertuzzi-Moore incident or the Trudeau family's sex life one could easily argue the event was not even worthy of your time even if you were qualified to comment on it.

But you didn't stop at the "jackass" remark (fair enough) or even to compare Playfair to a "bear tearing up the ground with a warning display," an apparent reference to a fear that the next time Playfair might just snap and maul someone to death.

If it were just that I'd say "enough already" and laugh out loud, but then you went over the top. In an argument that indicates that you are virtually clueless regarding pro sports today you go on to say that Playfair could "meet the same fate" as basketball coach Bobby Knight regarding future hockey employment and that another outburst and Playfair could be gone from hockey the way Knight is apparently banished from basketball.

"The coach's name, ironically, is Playfair," you said as it would somehow be less egregious if his name were Smith, Jones or Boyanowsky. You also said: "It will be interesting to see if this is a one-time episode. If he does it again, I think he'll be gone." As if somehow what you think will carry any weight in a business that is built on the simple equation that wins are better than losses. (See the always controversial Mike Keenan and his eight NHL coaching stints as Exhibit A for the argument that in sports, pretty much everything except losing is always forgiven or at least overlooked.)

And the Knight reference, that is truly laughable. You may not know this professor but Knight went a long way after his "enjoy the rape" days at Indiana and his "chair throwing" incident and even the allegations of his choking players and his altercation with a security guard at an international tournament (for which he was tried and convicted in absentia). In fact, one could argue that if you truly had any "expert" knowledge of the sports business that Playfair has actually set himself up for a post-coaching career in broadcasting largely via the way Knight's has achieved his current role as a "color commentator" with U.S.-based sports television monster ESPN.

Now it says a lot regarding the minds of television producers, but one could easily argue that Knight got that job based more on his penchant for creating controversy rather than his coaching record (especially in light of the fact he is no longer the winningest coach in NCAA Division 1 history). Want proof, look at the history of broadcast hires over time. Mike Milbury has a platform in two countries. One could say it is because of his long history in the game, but that history is highlighted by stints as a failed coach and a failed general manager. In the minds of some, however, Milbury has a "name" and it's rooted in controversy dating back to that famous video clip showing Mad Mike dressed as a defenceman for the Boston Bruins and going into a crowd at Madison Square Garden to beat a patron there with the patron's own shoe. Even the casual hockey and non-hockey fan knows who Mad Mike is.

One could also argue that if ESPN wanted the best ex-coach as an analyst it might have considered Scott Bowman rather than Barry Melrose, a failed coach whose made a name for himself by beating both the English language and reasonable thought into submission while arguing the path to successful hockey is built upon the rather narrow concept that you have to take out the opposition's best player in order to be successful.

Heck, Canada's Professor of Bombast, the Saturday night poster child for most everything that's incomprehensible about hockey, its rules and the way it is played, can be summed up in one man who borrowed the act of sports legend Dick Beddoes without ever coming close to Beddoes’ penchant for quality journalism.

In truth, the world, especially the sports world, is awash in experts and I sometimes play the role myself. But the difference is most people who are said to be "experts" don't have a clue as to what they are talking about and in the race by university public relations people to get their "expertise" people out there they often do no one any favours.

Jim Playfair is a case in point.

In my 30-plus years in hockey I've come to know via first-hand experience that Jim Playfair is a man of good character and outstanding coaching ability who happened to have a bad moment that was caught on tape. I know this because I know him, I know his family and I know his dedication to his family, his players and his profession.

No disrespect to you or your opinion Professor, but trust me on this: a little knowledge can go a long way, but only if you know the people you are talking about.

And if you knew Jim Playfair, like I do, you would know exactly what your "expert" opinion is worth.