Tim Tebow is a polarizing figure. What I find most interesting about Tim Tebow isn’t what makes him polarizing — the unconventional quarterbacking style and commitment to his theological beliefs — it’s that he has become polarizing. The reaction to Tebow is a lot more interesting than even his most compelling qualities.

Recently, Tim Thomas’ reputation underwent a similar transformation. Thomas is a sensational hockey goaltender who also, apparently, happens to be a politically charged American. He got the web buzzing after making a decision to express part of his political orientation. The circumstances of that choice — the high profile stage, the timing, the Facebook note — are mostly uninteresting but the reaction from the public has been absolutely fascinating.

It always surprises me the degree to which an athlete can force us to confront a social or economic issue. More than any other category of celebrity, athletes have a way of revealing unresolved tensions within the public.

We’re constantly reevaluating athletes based on their athletic performance. Sometimes athletes are measured by more than just ability. When this occurs the conversation tends to drift into one of tolerance. The big picture question for every polarizing athlete is one of tolerance.

* * *

I admire athletes for their physical ability. Those are not just empty words. I understand how hard they must train and the sacrifices they must make in order to reach the professional level. Athletes impress me; they impress me all time. The skill they demonstrate, the stories they craft — it can be a remarkable viewing experience. What athletes do and say in-between games can, if you let it, detract from this experience.

I’m always reluctant to set any expectations for the behavior of an athlete outside of a competitive environment for many reasons but mostly because they’re always based on appearances and surface truths. Shouldn’t it take more to know a person? Wouldn’t it take more to know you?

I’m not trying to sell anyone on the idea that what athletes say and do inside the public’s sphere of observation is totally irrelevant to the games. But I do think from time to time we need to remind ourselves that — and pardon the cliché — athletes are people. People are complicated and can have complex motives in life. And they’re diverse and they’re full of surprises. We should all respect each other’s story. We should respect the blank spaces.

That I will never fully understand Tim Tebow or Tim Thomas in their time as professionals is not disappointing or at all bothersome to me. I don’t need to understand an athlete to appreciate his work. All an athlete like Tebow or Thomas will ever ask from me is my attention; they have it, without condition, for as long as they compete at the professional level.

Eventually, I learned that the actual behavior of polarizing athletes was much less consequential, in a direct sense, than the breadth of the reaction would otherwise suggest. Are we out of problems? Polarizing athletes like Tebow and Thomas are harmless. Again, it’s about tolerance; tolerance from us, the public. Are you tolerant of this behavior from a person you don’t fully understand – the sports world routinely asks us. Nevermind that this person is a legitimate stranger. Please provide your answer by an explicit show of support or criticism. This is what we do.

“The Top 50 Albums of 2011 are sourced from 403 bloggers’ personal Top 10 lists and weighted according to their ranking.”

Some of the more notable albums included are Tune Yards’ W H O K I L L, Decemberists’ King Is Dead, Adele’s 21, Radiohead’s The King of Limbs, Shabazz Palaces’ Black Up, Jay Z & Kanye West’s Watch the Throne, Fiest’s Metals, Lady Gaga’s Born This Way, Drake’s Take Care, The Roots’ Undun, The Weeknd’s House of Balloons, and The Black Keys’ El Camino.

Higher on the list, ahead of all the albums I just mentioned, placing third in HM’s top 50 of 2011, is an album by M83 named Hurry Up, We’re Dreaming. By a wide margin, the track with the most traction on Hurry Up, We’re Dreaming is “Midnight City.”

I don’t remember my first impression of “Midnight City.” Evidently, it struck me as a song to pass over. Then mix and mash artists wore it out. When the mix and mash artists sink their talons into a song, it’s usually a sign to stay away. I stayed away and, to be honest, the parts of “Midnight City” I heard reminded me of my least favorite era of music: the early techno movement of the 1980s led by groups like Depeche Mode and Soft Cell.

When I saw that Hurry Up, We’re Dreaming had made it all the way up to the three spot, I decided to listen to the album in its entirety. I had to learn for myself why everyone was so impressed. Maybe I had blinders on. It turns out I was foolish for sleeping on M83. The album is great. I recommend it.

As for “Midnight City,” my appreciation for it has grown too. I needed to listen to it in its entirety a few times. ”Midnight City” is a song built around a powerful four note, synth-metal arrangement. At first, I didn’t find the presentation of the melody very appealing in the first-half of the song and I’m still not too crazy about it. I probably would have skipped past and never heard the second-half of the song if I had I only ever came upon “Midnight City” while listening to something like a Spotify playlist. Fortunately, my patience is much greater when I listen to full albums. When I commit to listening to an album, I prefer to hear each track from beginning to end, in sequence, uninterrupted. Had I not seen Hurry Up, We’re Dreaming on HM’s list of top 50 albums of 2011, I would have never heard the saxophone in the second-half of “Midnight City.”

A French musician named Anthony Gonzales does all the composition work for M83. He doesn’t use traditional melodic instruments very often in his music, or at least he doesn’t in Hurry Up, We’re Dreaming. Its sound is nebulous; it’s highly synthetic; it’s a lot of softly layered voices over powerful percussion. It might be a pop album if it weren’t for the series of trans-meditative tracks that interplay between the power ballads. I love how Ian Cohen of Pitchfork describes these breaks.

“While many of them stand as intriguing meditations on their own merits, they reinforce Hurry Up’s intentions to be an immersive universe– check in whenever you want, but the magic’s in the exploratory phases.”

The exploratory phase in “Midnight City” is fantastic:

A singer wails, “waiting for a car/waiting for a ride in the dark.” The melody whines. Synthetic snares and symbols thump and hiss dimly. A saxophone arrives and solos aimlessly — an unexpected but distinctive sound that leads the moment it becomes audible.

I consider the song’s ending necessary in order to fully appreciate its beginning. I like to think the melody was designed for the background — a background in which an instrument like the saxophone can float to the front. The scene is a city at the midnight hour. Neon signs, skyline, flashing movement — all are part of the lyrical imagery. Sonically, I chose to allow the melody to represent the city; it’s slightly irritating, maybe a little uncomfortable, and probably a little too strong, especially initially. The beauty can be found by surveying the entire package, specifically how the song builds then slips to the background so as to allow something distinct to emerge in the forefront. The saxophone and its timing doesn’t just fit within the constructs of the song — it’s perfect for the song.

It took me a while to recognize this. A three-minute prelude to a single minute of what, judged independently, is probably an unremarkable couple of bars of saxophone. But together, layered, it works almost effortlessly. The song is nearly finished by the time the missing part is added and suddenly it all snaps into place.

* * *

How long before the Sabres find a saxophone?

The current favorability of the Sabres is hardly a matter of great subjectivity. By anyone’s standards, they are having a largely problematic season. So, of course, Ruff and Regier have been heavily criticized. I’m not here to dissuade anyone, only to point out the symmetry. We no longer allow the reputations of Ruff and Regier to exist autonomously, apart from the team, as we once did and presently do with individual players.

I want to be try and be as fair as possible with how I measure the Sabres. When attempting to understand and contextualize a team’s win/loss record, the first step I’m inclined to take involves designating eras. An oft-used benchmark in hockey circles is the 2004-2005 NHL lockout. Other eras commonly begin and end with ownership/executive/coaching changes and major player addition/subtractions. I think the Sabres, for example, are in the defining years of the Ryan Miller era and the beginning years of the Pegula era.

The Miller era has had its ups and down. In four years, the Sabres have made the playoffs twice but failed to advance beyond the first-round in each occasion. Heading into its fifth year, Regier chose to replace Connolly, Butler, and Montador with Leino, Regehr, and Ehrhoff — a sizeable investment in the short term future of the team. Regier’s motivations were affected by Pegula’s presence, no doubt, but it would be a mistake to label the previous summer as anything but an endorsement of the players already under contract. This is year five of an era, and there needs to be some results suggestive of progress.

The endorsement is arguably the most obvious problem with Regier at the moment. The Sabres won a division title in 2010, a reason to hope the team had finally taken a step forward, but the following fall the team put together an abysmal first-half of the regular season. At the very least, that period in the season was a sign of the group’s limitations.

Now here we are again, one year later, and the Sabres sit 4^th in their division and 11^th in their conference. Regier’s lack of foresight is a major factor in the current product. He never sold high on any one of his players. The people who are expecting Regier to make a trade now are minimizing the larger point which is that a significant trade should have already been executed. This is the wrong time. The ideal candidates to move off the team have extremely low market value.

Again, the Miller era has had its ups and downs. It has been surprising to watch the production from individual players oscillate from high to low. It’s primarily been the stars too — Derek Roy, Jason Pominville, Thomas Vanek, Drew Stafford, Tyler Myers, Ryan Miller, and formerly Tim Connolly. Each one of those players had long stretches of high production that make everyone wonder if this player can finally be relied upon. The letdown has historically proven itself inevitable under Lindy Ruff. Why?

I couldn’t even guess at the cause. I’m an outsider. I only know this season has been particularly troubling to watch. The secondary scoring, the depth on defense, the back-up goaltending — never has any of it been better in the Ryan Miller era. If the surrounding parts have never been better, why are key players still disappearing for long-stretches?

A lot of the questions and points of frustration with the Sabres can be interpreted and blamed in multiple fashions. The larger take-away is the urgency that Ruff and Regier are both functioning within now. Their job security is a source of public debate. Internally, there’s support for Ruff and Regier but to what point? This was supposed to be a season in which the Sabres show significant progress — the culmination of four years growing and developing a core. It’s tough to justify a continuation of this poor to middling product. What are they moving towards? Is there a foundation in place from which a winner can be built?

It’s time to consider some difficult questions but it’s too soon to expect serious answers.

What kind of message do people expect to hear from Pegula and Black in January? With an entire half-season remaining, it makes total sense for them to emphasize the injuries. The season is still salvageable. The team should know that the owner and president believe in a healthy version of this roster. It almost goes without saying — calling attention to the injuries as proof of the team’s misfortune will not hold up if the Sabres miss the playoffs. But we’re not at that point yet.

Their message isn’t something to agree or disagree with; it’s purpose is to enable the team to play to its potential. It’s not the time for reevaluation; that comes later. For now, throw away all the plans and expectations. Start over. This time the urgency is real. The pressure is real. It’s time for desperate hockey. Play desperate, or don’t. Either or Pegula and Black are wise to give the team a chance to make that decision themselves.

What’s bothered me most this season has been the home record. Prior to the game against the Leafs on December 16, the Sabres had won just two of their last ten games at home. That’s absolutely pathetic.

Let me be totally clear. The home team at FNC that season ticket holders have watched from their seats ranks to this point as one of the worst in the league. Ticket holders have legitimate reasons to be upset with the product. The Sabres have been dysfunctional at home all season long. They routinely allow leads to slip away and their effort has been, to put it lightly, inconsistent. Some fans will give the team more time to pull it together than others but there’s no escaping the widening gap between reality and expectations.

My most shared expectation was that the Sabres would show flashes of greatness. I didn’t expect their record to be elite. I imagined the Sabres would occasionally overwhelm an elite team but would otherwise have limited success against middling opponents. This has not been the case. The Sabres performance in bench-mark games has been disappointing. The Flyers and Bruins have a combined 4-0 record against the Sabres this season; the Red Wings and Penguins have each crushed the Sabres.

My hope at the start of the season was that at some point in the season the Sabres would put together a run where they win something like thirteen of fifteen games. I still think they’re capable of such a streak but the dynamic has changed now that the Sabres have tumbled so far down the standings table. I thought a winning streak would be enough to put the Sabres in a competition for the division title late in the season; considering the way the season has gone so far, it seems like a long winning streak might be a necessity just to qualify for the playoffs. Obviously I totally misjudged this team.

The leading story, now midway through, has been the inability of several high profile veterans to carry the Sabres through adversity. In the first quarter of the season, Tyler Myers played poorly by anyone’s standards and Ryan Miller directly cost the Sabres several games. Miller has been an average goaltender more recently and Myers, of course, has been out of the line-up. Drew Stafford has done some impressive things rushing to the net with the puck but he has been unable to finish nearly as often as the team has needed. Derek Roy, Ville Leino, and Brad Boyes have each been largely unproductive. These are players the Sabres depend on to bail the rest of the team out.

At present, the Sabres are a terribly unconfident and extremely fragile group. It’s plain to see. These recent losses against the Senators, Capitals, Devils, and Leafs are the product of their failures earlier in the season. The leads that slipped away and the pucks that almost made it past the goaltender are piling up and now they’re dragging the team down. Close losses in which the Sabres didn’t exactly play poorly were inevitable. I don’t usually have a fatalist attitude with the Sabres but I resigned myself to these most recent losses weeks ago. Far more than the soft team storyline that’s been totally overblown, the missed opportunities earlier in the year to close out wins have pulled the life out of the players and fans.

So now the conversation swings back to coaching and leadership. If we accept that poor execution from the talent is responsible for a disappointing first half of the regular season, the question becomes — why has the top-talent failed the team? Did the talent fail to meet our expectations because we’ve overrated their ability? Or, did the talent fail because of inadequate coaching and/or leadership?

It’s appropriate to ask where Lindy Ruff fits in with what has happened this season. He has coached the core of this team for five or six years — hundreds and hundreds of games. His opening day roster featured a Vezina trophy winning goaltender, two 40-goal scorers and three 30-goal scorers all in the prime of their careers, and arguably the most talented group of defenders he’s ever coached.

It’s also fair to ask why so many of the forwards, veterans and rookies alike, look uncomfortable on the ice when key leaders like Vanek and Pominville have been so dependable. If Vanek and Pominville are effective leaders, why hasn’t the rest of the team been able to rally around their individual success?

There has to be some kind of middle ground between blame and shared responsibility. Frankly, it’s a little insulting to see and hear people absolve Ruff of any blame. Certainly Ruff, and even highly productive leaders like Vanek and Pominville, share part of the responsibility for the team’s record.

But whenever I consider the quality of this particular coaching staff and leadership group, it feels like contributing factors that, at most, exacerbate a much larger problem — which is that the Sabres are built around a mostly undependable group of veterans. What do the Sabres do with Miller? What do the Sabres do with Stafford? I mean, there’s a list of players I could mention here, right?

Something I’ve been thinking a lot about lately within the context of the Sabres roster is the franchise’s status within the league. What Pegula did with the locker-room and player lounge is part of a transition. Those changes have become a punch-line when put in context with the Sabres home record but the reality is the athletes under contract with the Sabres play for an organization that has extremely committed ownership, first-rate facilities, and great fan support. I believe the Sabres have become a potential destination for the Mark Recchi, Gary Roberts, future hall-of-fame types who, as their storied careers come to a close, are trying to win one last ring. The point is — players should understand they’re very fortunate to play for the Sabres. They need to feel a sense of urgency to make the most of their time. Tomorrow they could be playing for a lower-rated franchise whether they’re productive or not but the unproductive players, everyone in hockey should be made aware, are expedited out of Buffalo. Players need to earn the right to stay with this franchise. That’s a message the Sabres will eventually to need to enforce, if not send.

I remember how exaggerated the praise directed at Ted Black felt last spring. I’ve always liked Black but I decided at the time that T. Pegula was the one and only star — the reason to hope the Sabres would reach greatness. Black, meanwhile, with his Gordon Gekko hairstyle, was filed away in my mind as the deputy director of day-to-day operations, first, and a financial consultant for Pegula, second; a behind-the-scenes type, I presumed. My attitude has changed.

* * *

Sport at the professional level is obviously a very fluid and high profile industry. It’s difficult to overvalue an executive’s ability to effectively communicate and interact with the consumer. Traditional advertising as a means of promotion has become antiquated — replaced with sophisticated efforts in public relations. How better to reach the public in a likable manner than with words that convey humanity?

What happens when someone involved at the highest level of sports remains silent for an extended period of time? Reputations are ultimately shaped by results but silence enables outsiders to shape the public’s perception. Today, perception is best managed through availability — questions and answers. When questions linger and go unanswered, it poisons how people react to future answers.

Admittedly, I never fully understood the value in accessibility until somewhat recently. I’m not someone that spends a lot of time and energy consuming and contextualizing quotes from sports figures. Ted Black has simply been unavoidable. He’s everywhere. I began paying closer attention after I realized his words reveal certain qualities of the Buffalo sports audience.

The Sabres, if you haven’t noticed, are in a bit of a tailspin. From December 17, here is some of what Ted Black told the Buffalo News’ Bucky Gleason.

“Be patient. I know it’s one of the most cruel things I could possibly say to [people who] have been asked to be patient for 41 long winters. Included in that fan base is Terry Pegula. He’s been patient for decades as well as a fan. We’re going to continue to move forward. We are on the right trajectory, and we’re not done yet.

The fans here are great. You can get inside of a bubble and just listen to call-in shows, tweets and chats. When I talk one-on-one to fans, 99.9999 percent, our fans have been fantastic. I should say 100 percent because I haven’t had a negative experience with a fan.”

More Ted Black, this from December 20 via Pierre LeBrun of ESPN:

“And I also recognize the inherent cruelty of asking fans who have been through 40 winters of disappointment to have patience or to ask them to have a sense of hope and promise. Never in the history of the Sabres has there been a time when the ownership put more resources in the pursuit of building a championship franchise. We’re almost 10 months into this; we’re not going to panic. We’re going to do everything we can to improve the team whenever we can improve it.

I get it. I know these fans are so frustrated. I live in the city, I live in the community; I know how badly they want a championship team. We’re going to do everything we can to deliver it. When I say be patient, I’m not asking for blind faith or blind belief or blind trust; because Buffalo fans are smarter than accepting those empty promises. We’re asking them to stick with us. We’re right on the trajectory. Maybe it doesn’t feel like it. Maybe it doesn’t feel like it today, but we are going to continue the vigorous pursuit to bring the Cup to Buffalo.”

Perfect, right? This is why Ted Black is around. He clearly knows Buffalo extremely well already. How long has he been here? He checks every box. It’s like he read this in a textbook. Maybe he’s writing a textbook — How to Manage a Multi-Generation Fanbase in a Rustbelt City That’s Without a Major Sports Championship For Dummies.

Follow his progression. The fans want answers for the disappointing start to the season. Black gives us a dose of reason. Be patient. The fans ask why. Black responds with empathy. I recognize that you’ve waited a long time for a championship. The fans say do better. Black reminds us they can’t possibly be any more committed, and then tells us what he knows. This is not a trick. We’re committed. You’re knowledgeable and I’m trying to learn from you by engaging you in your environment. 

Would anyone like to object with any part of Ted Black’s pre-holiday message? Even if there were a lose string to pull, he buries it under a thick layer of compliments directed towards Buffalo’s hockey fans. He just continues to pad that good-will.

The impact is that instead of frustration growing into apathy, it grows into boredom. The difference is subtle but important. Apathy represents a regression of attention. To be bored in the present indicates repetition, which is inherently unmemorable. See how this works? It’s the best case scenario when the team is in a downturn.

I’m sure there are people who are beginning to identify similarities between the Pegula owned Sabres and the stereotypical professional sports team in Buffalo. Someone will eventually conclude that sports teams in Buffalo cannot win big. That argument is coming. Maybe some of this cynicism spills over onto proclamations regarding the fans.

It’s important for the Pegula era of the Sabres to differentiate itself from other ownership groups in Buffalo sports history. Ultimately the favorability of the Pegula era will be based on the talent, the product. Black can be, and is acting as, the buffer between the product and the public’s perception of the product. He’s the force that must slow the assimilation of Pegula’s Sabres with the years of disappointment. A major part of that is in his interaction with media. He’s done a masterful job so far, but everything he says is all predicated on a belief that the product on the ice will rebound. Will it?

The Sabres are boring. Fine, I imagine Ted Black might admit in private, better to be boring and forgettable than to be unwatchable.

Has this what it’s come to?

Suppose in the months that follow, other research-intensive academic institutions publish additional, more sophisticated statistical studies that uphold the initial findings. The epistemology is unclear, but the raw data is irrefutable. On average, blue-eyed drivers are causing more accidents than those with alternatively colored eyes. How can this be?

Fast-forward a few years. Blue-eyed individuals undergo extensive testing. Their motor function mirrors that of the control group; judgment, rule comprehension, reaction speed — each test as average.

Most in the science community describe this trend as a bizarre but natural phenomenon, upheld by the laws of probability. Some in the public suggests that blue-eyed individuals stop driving and take public transportation. Others advocate for investment in pharmaceutical research.

Meanwhile, the auto-insurance rates increase for blue-eyed drivers. This pisses a lot of people off. It also legitimizes the problem.

One physician who maintains a private practice while also authoring a syndicated public health column for the Washington Post Writers Group suggests blue-eyed drivers should eat bananas. The blue-eyed patients of his who eat a single banana every morning rarely get in automobile accidents. In fact, none of them do. In fact, he’s instructed all of his blue-eyed patients to eat a banana each morning. And they do. And on days when they do, they don’t cause any accidents. Bananas have potassium, he reminds his readers.

This seems dubious to many but believable to some. While blood tests confirm blue-eyed individuals have normal levels of potassium, the idea of a daily natural dose of potassium inhibiting what’s causing blue-eyed motorists to crash their vehicles is plausible enough to gain a little momentum with the public.

Eventually NPR’s All Things Considered uses a segment to examine the idea that potassium in ordinary bananas might somehow alter the driving behavior of blue-eyed individuals. Good Morning America spends a few minutes discussing bananas and drivers with blue-eyes. 60 minutes interviews the physician who first suggested the idea.

Many bananas are eaten.

Slowly, steadily, incredibly, the rate of involvement in automobile accidents for blue-eyed motorists starts to decline. Scientists can’t explain why. The media attention surrounding the issue shrinks. Normalcy resumes.

* * *

Let’s review. What we have are a group of individuals within a system from which we can visibly distinguish a sub-group. We know something is special about this sub-group. We don’t know what it is that is special about them only that their uniqueness is linked to an involvement in dangerous incidents within the system.

We also know there is a public perception that validates all of this even though there’s very little evidence for the scientific community to explain this trend and, in addition, this trend has never been investigated or observed by anyone, ever, until very recently.

We’re dealing with hard truths. This is happening to a group of individuals. That’s all we have. No why or how. Only who and what.

Any solution offered is based strictly on anecdotal evidence. Everyone is speculating. So when the trend begins to diminish, there’s no clear causation.

* * *

Everything about that story is fictional and absurd, right? This is not a trick. The answer is yes.

Okay, so where are we with concussions again? Let’s break this down. Start with the basics. What do we know? We know concussions are injuries that afflict the athletes of contact sports and they have been occurring for many years. We know some of the long term effects of these injuries. We know that the concussion is a form of injury that has never been diagnosed more often than it is now. We know they are caused by collisions involving the head but not all collisions involving the head cause concussions. So we don’t really know what causes them only what can cause them (an important distinction).

The uncertainty surrounding concussions is due, in large part, to the internal nature of the injury. Nothing is visible. The event wherein a concussion may have occurred is visible but the event, the collision, only make players candidates for a concussion diagnosis. We don’t have the technology to measurably detect an occurrence of a concussion. Whether or not an athlete has sustained a concussion is, at this point, a matter of the symptoms the individual expresses verbally.

Another factor, another known, another undeniable truth is the massive amount attention on the issue of concussions in sports right now. Concussion has become a buzz word. They’re undoubtedly, no pun intended, on the minds of athletes.

In the NHL, athletes are very familiar with Marc Savard’s situation. Sidney Crosby’s recovery period from concussion was highly publicized. It seems like every organization has an athlete or two recovering from a concussion. Every division has a handful of high profile athletes who have sustained or are out of the line-up because of post-concussions symptoms. The degree of separation is very, very small.

Somehow the NHL needs to settle into a place where athletes think less often about concussions. That’s not to suggest some of the athletes’ symptoms are being fabricated or that some of the diagnoses are fraudulent. These injuries are very real, the symptoms are real, and the effects are real. I mean to suggest it’s counter-productive for players to be preoccupied with the safety of their heads before, during, and after collisions that involve a player’s head.

Everyone else involved with professional hockey, from the commissioner of the league to the training staff of individual teams, should be proactively thinking about concussions — specifically, ways to decline the concussion-rate and more effective techniques to treat concussions. Think of where we are in this timeline. We’re still years away from having the technology needed to adequately understand these injuries. Where does that leave hockey? What can be done in the meantime?

There are mountains of evidence supporting the placebo effect. Let’s start trying some new things. I don’t mean in place of what the AMA teaches. It’s foolish to use alternative medicine as a primary method for recovery but what’s wrong with trying something to supplement the traditional treatment plan?

Another quick hypothetical: what if a trainer was to manufacture something, some simple technique, and told players it may reduce the post-concussion effects? Perhaps putting ice packs on a few of the lymph nodes immediately after a potential concussion. Or, maybe, flushing an athlete’s systems with Vitamin C in the days that follow a potential concussion.

The value isn’t in the medical application because there is none; the value is in the diminishing the helpless feeling athletes surely regard themselves to these injuries. The idea is to keep athlete’s minds off resting. Keep them engaged in the treatment. Distract them, at least a little, from the injury and the potential for post-concussion symptoms to manifest.

Concussions are physical injuries with growing psychological hurdles, especially in professional hockey. Can we agree on that? Something else is happening here besides players bumping their heads. There’s a pervading concern with head related injuries. It goes beyond precaution. It’s an anxiety. It’s a terror.

I love the idea of the NHL initiating and sponsoring an annual conference to discuss head-related injuries that Ken Dryden put forth in this fantastic essay. It’s a proactive approach to finding answers.

I’m willing to pay attention to anyone with ideas for preventing or recovering from concussions. Mine is very simple: reshape the mentality of the players with regards to heads injuries. It’s a stupid cliché, and I apologize for using it here, but I respect the power the mind has over the body. Let’s explore those limitations in a injury prevention/recovery capacity. For an injury with so much uncertainty surrounding its diagnosis and treatment, isn’t this an avenue worth exploring?

I think I first have to say — the fallout that takes place after a questionable on-ice incident has become one of my least favorite parts of the hockey fan experience. There is so much posturing that occurs outside of the game now and it’s growing a little tiresome to follow.

When it comes to supplementary discipline, I’ve only ever cared about reducing the severe head injuries. I find most concussion inducing body checks a little disturbing to watch and I don’t like the idea of someone like Tim Connolly suffering for the rest of his life so that I may be entertained. I’m satisfied with the renewed commitment the NHL has shown in extracting those body checks from the game. Now I’m sort of ready to move on from all the case-to-case criticism the hockey community gives questionable incidents. Head shots are beyond reproach in the NHL now.

My one concern with Shanahan is that he has no experience of any kind in jurisprudence. Being a respected member of the hockey community will only get him so far. He needs to be able to manage the perception of his decisions, otherwise observers will bury him. His relationship with media is now very different than it was back when he was a player. It’s all about subtext for him now. It’s become apparent to me that he doesn’t quite get it yet.

For instance, a judicially trained individual wouldn’t allow, or given the impression he would allow, a simple denial of intention from the player in question to become a deciding factor. Here’s Shanahan addressing the Miller/Lucic collision back on November 14th:

“I did have some questions for Milan and I wanted to hear directly from him. They were regarding his intent; at what point did he know there was going to be a collision; and whether or not he felt he had the time to avoid the collision. I was satisfied with his answers.”

In a situation such as this, why would the defendant be presumed to provide a truthful testimony? Um, right hand on the Bible, okay Milan? The defendant’s denial is part of the reason for the trial, not evidence for an acquittal.

Beyond that, a judicially trained individual wouldn’t have engaged a coach in a public debate over his decision in the way Brendan Shanahan did with Lindy Ruff. Shanahan is the authority. He’s the judge. Of course the persecuting party will object to a non-conviction. They’re biased. So are the defendants. The decision stands for itself. Deaf ears to the party who was ruled against. Shanahan has to be accepting of criticism; otherwise he clouds the integrity of future judgments. Here’s Shanahan addressing Ruff at the Hockey Hall of Fame induction ceremony:

“I think Buffalo’s comments are irresponsible to suggest that it’s open season. I will have this warning for players: `It’s not. If you run a goalie you’re going to find yourself in the same situation that Lucic was today, you’re going to have to explain yourself and you don’t explain it sufficiently, and if I don’t buy it, you’re going to be suspended.”‘

Shanahan will still be the judge for the Sabres’ next court date. And by next court date I mean today or tomorrow. Shanahan’s verbal missteps are returning, express delivery, back to his door-step. Jordin Tootoo of the Nashville Predators collided hard with Ryan Miller inside his goal-crease on Saturday night, three weeks after Lucic checked Miller. Now what does Shanahan do?

Let’s forget the video evidence for a moment. Why shouldn’t Shanahan suspend Tootoo? Tootoo denies he intentionally collided with Miller, just as Lucic did. Tootoo’s words should be a factor just as they were in Lucic’s case, otherwise it looks like Lucic and the Bruins, by extension, were given unequal treatment. Okay — why should Shanahan suspend Tootoo? Shanahan’s message, in response to Lindy Ruff’s criticism, was that it wouldn’t be tolerated.

Shanahan will look bad no matter what he decides. His decision will contradict with some aspect of his message over the course of the fallout to the Lucic/Miller collision. Does intention matter or not? Is it open-season or not?

Maybe it really is coincidence that Tootoo hit the same goaltender who earlier in the season was involved in a significant goaltender interference play. Maybe it really is coincidence that Miller was hit during the first game back since returning from injury. Seems like a stretch but again I don’t really care what happens to Tootoo. What matters is Shanahan’s mixed message and that Ruff, who publicly opposed him, has been proven right.

The take-away is probably to be mindful of Shanahan’s language and message moving forward, specifically the language that comes out of these disciplinary hearings and Shanahan’s larger message to the press. For someone in Shanahan’s position, there’s an unfortunate small room for error.

It’s easy to forget that Crosby is only twenty-four years old. He’s already so accomplished. As an highly talented, highly accomplished Canadian-born player, Crosby has a great reputation. I understand the reputation but I don’t fully understand how this aura that surrounds him came about. It’s sort of difficult to describe.

Consider Crosby’s effect on the Penguins. There’s a sense that the Penguins are Crosby’s team in the same way the Lakers are Kobe’s. There seems to be an expectation, from top to bottom inside the Penguins organization, for Crosby’s team to play up to his high standard. The Penguins always play hard. Some credit should certainly go to Dan Bylsma but I think Crosby is most responsible for pushing the Penguins to their competitive limits.

 * * *

Meanwhile, Bruce Boudreau, lovable F-bomb dropper and once rooted head coach of the Capitals, is now out of work. The Capitals are in disarray. Last Saturday, they caught a beat-down in the FNC from a Sabres team with nine rookies in the line-up. At some point this season, the atmosphere around the Capitals became toxic.

What exactly is wrong with the Capitals? What’s wrong with Ovechkin? Bruce Arthur writes, “The question has become not what he can accomplish, but why doesn’t he accomplish it?”

I don’t buy into any of the negative stereotypes that hockey dinosaurs like to apply to European and Russian born players. I think when international players run into trouble in their NHL careers, it can usually be traced back to a lack of maturity, or at least what appears to be a lack of maturity when measured against the ideal version of a (Canadian-born) hockey player. Canada, to their credit, has developed a highly sophisticated system for the teaching of hockey to kids and amateurs. It’s a character building activity for Canadians. Who knows what the experience is like for young hockey players in countries like Russia and the Czech Republic? Is it enough to say it’s just different?

Ovechkin comes from a foreign place. He surely handles himself and his work different than the North American born hockey players. Maybe he’s immature, or maybe not. It’s all speculation. I’d rather not blame any problems related to Ovechkin’s effort or scoring production on the athletic culture of a particular nationality. That seems incredibly lazy to me. It’s more likely that Ovechkin is dealing with universal issues that all elite level talents must learn to overcome.

* * *

Six days before Crosby’s return and thirteen days before the Capitals fired Boudreau, the artist presently known as “Drake” released his sophomore album. Take Care is a massive success, commercially. It’s an aesthetically pleasing album — Drake specializes in a minimalist, slow-jam form of hip/hop — but as a complete package, Take Care is a miss in this humble, not-at-all-important-person’s opinion. I don’t listen to Drake’s music often because, generally, I find it to be too centered around his misery. It’s strange. Sasha Frere-Jones, who gave the album high praise, suggests, “Drake resembles Charlie Brown, permanently resigned to all success being fleeting and all pleasure being provisional.” Hua Hsu offers, “I admit that I have no idea why Drake is so sad…”

Drake is obviously a very skilled MC. I sample everything he does because out of all the MC’s making music now, Drake is near the top of my list of artists most likely to make the next great rap album. At this point in Drake’s young career, there’s a gap in his artisan profile that cannot be filled by commercial success. I believe the potential for extreme greatness is inside of Drake and that he will fulfill this potential when he finally makes an album that tests his limits.

Emma Carmichael points out, “He [Drake] sounds a little bit older.” Probably, relative to his first album, yes, Drake has grown up a bit. But he’s not yet matured enough as an artist to look beyond his yearning and intense angst. Maybe he never will and I’m sure that wouldn’t be so bad for a lot of people. Teenagers will dig him no matter what he says in his music.

Like Ovechkin, I look at Drake and see talent — lots and lots and lots of talent. I’m drawn to it. I think talent can be misused and it can be misunderstood but ultimately, no matter how raw its form, I can’t ever seem to turn away.

 * * *

Talent doesn’t always become Sidney Crosby or produce a record like Kanye’s College Dropout. Those are the outliers but that’s what everyone is hoping for, right? When it’s not going right or, rather, going at half-speed, it can be frustrating especially when observing from the outside. Coaches get fired for trying to motivate talent. Albums are released to massive first week sales despite containing what this unsophisticated honky considers to be music reflective of only half the artists’ talent.

Can they be saved? Can they regain the focus needed to succeed professionally in the clouded aftermath of such tremendous commercial success? People like me start to wonder. Ovechkin can be made into a champion but will he become that player? Drake can evolve into a more lyrically sophisticated MC but will he feel the pressure to take those steps? It’s still too soon to tell.

People grow up — become more mature and self-aware. In the meantime we wait, watch and listen.

So I’ve never really been worried about how this regular season for the Sabres will turn out. I imagine at some point, eventually, the Sabres will put together a long streak of very good hockey — one where they win something like thirteen of fifteen games. I hope and expect that for the most part the Sabres will remain fairly consistent, winning, on average, every other game. I think they’re talented enough to pull out wins even when they’re not playing their best hockey and I think they’re talented enough to string together a really impressive stretch of games during which everything seems to work.

But I’ll admit to being concerned heading into last night’s game against the Bruins. I was not prepared for the Sabres to be faced with such a high stakes game so early in the season. I felt that if the Sabres lost badly to the Bruins, considering how poor their record at FNC has been this season, it would have led to trouble. It would have been a real challenge to overcome another bad loss to the Bruins so soon, this time at home. Fans would have started to really doubt the team’s competitiveness and leadership. Alarms would have definitely been sounding for me, especially with the uncertainty surrounding the availability of Tyler Myers and Ryan Miller moving forward. I still think it will take some time for the players on this team to come together and settle into their roles, especially the newer Sabres. The key during this adjustment period is to avoid slipping into a team-wide slump and losing something like seven of ten games. Would a bad loss to the Bruins last night have triggered a big slump? I don’t know but I think a slump for this team would be particularly destructive. The pressure as an underachieving team needing to make up ground in the standings would be enormous. Everyone in hockey knows how hard it is to make up ground in the standings, even in the early stages of the season.

Against the Bruins, the Sabres played to their strength in the first thirty minutes of the game. They controlled the puck down low in the Bruins zone. They passed well. They forced the Bruins into turnovers. Jochen Hecht, Drew Stafford, and Thomas Vanek all missed on terrific scoring chances. In the second half of the game the Bruins skated hard and started imposing themselves physically, making it difficult for the Sabres to establish any sustained pressure in the offensive-zone. By the end of regulation, those missed opportunities earlier in the game loomed large for the Sabres.

Ultimately, the shootout and overtime matter little. It’s a thing that the Sabres gave up a two-goal lead and it will surely appear in most game stories but that’s not really what people should take away from this night. The Sabres dropped the gloves enough times to satisfy the vindictive and the blood thirsty among us. They acted out the narrative that had been scripted in the weeks leading up to this game. The fans got to cheer a lot. The Sabres came up short in the skills competition but the outcome of that is not nearly as significant, from the Sabres perspective, as putting in the effort required to derail some of the discussion around their perception as being a soft team. The Sabres should be proud of their effort in a game that had enormous build-up and, frankly, expectations that were a little unfair.

Now normalcy may resume. With the follow-up game against the Bruins behind them, maybe players and coaches will refrain from any more profanity laced interview sessions for a minute or two. For a while there it was like they thought they were fucking internet writers or something. Hopefully, the Sabres can just get back to the grind and work on fixing some of their problems without this stupid game against the Bruins looming. It’s not going to get any easier, but, hopefully, now it’s just about hockey.

First and foremost, representatives of sports organizations and academic institutions are regularly challenging the ethical tolerance of their audience. The defining question of the present day sports culture is how one resolves a situation in which their loyalty is betrayed by a condemnable action. Any experience an individual or group has answering this specific question is secondary to the pronounced effect it has on the general sports world and how it is being followed by people like you and I.

These are the headlines on ESPN.com on Friday, November 18, 2011, 12:01 AM. Please look at them closely. And people say local television news is depressing. 

Child rape (the latest on Penn State can be found in commentary), child molestation, drug abuse, and DWIs are all included in the main sports headlines of the day. Oh, and if that’s not dark enough, you may choose to read about the absurd NBA lockout, the corrupt BCS system, or a controversially pious quarterback who plays professional football for the Broncos. Sports!

There is certainly no shortage of material to condemn, debate, and judge. Sports media, it seems, is more than willing to put on their righteous hat and preach ethics for a minute or thirty. Anything to take a break from analyzing what some stupid jock says in front of a microphone, I’m sure. It’s clear, based on the amount of attention fans and media give to these stories, that we’re very interested in whatever is scandalous and salacious in sports. Sports news has become a lot like regular news: tragic.

Deep down, I think everyone understands that the loyalty they have for teams and schools is at least a little misplaced. I believe this because when scandals reach the public’s attention I notice individuals without any loyalty to the organization or institution will often track the fallout closely and comment abundantly on the alleged perpetrators. I don’t think we do this because we enjoy learning about the secrets of an entitled, morally compromised athlete or coach. We follow these stories because we’re compelled to act as agents pulling a particular group of loyalists back to a plane of rationality. We like to remind people that sports figures do not deserve our blind loyalty and everyone in this realm is corruptible.

Maybe we obsess over scandals because it indirectly inflates the greatness of our school or professional franchise. Or maybe our obsession is rooted in an awareness of just how fragile the relationship is between school/organization and fan. This would explain why fans are so reluctant to consider the possibility of there being anything ethically or competitively foul occurring, behind the scenes. (Please refrain from reminding me how, exactly, Terry Pegula earned all his money.)

Whether we do this knowingly or not, a dirty truth about sports is that fans want to protect the sports brands they have invested in over the years. We want to preserve that bond and part of that effort is conditioning ourselves to guard franchises and institutions from attacks made on their reputation. The loyalty fans have is deep and aged but totally blind. That’s why these attacks are taken kind of personally. These teams become part of our identity.

This is obviously very unhealthy, right? It’s unhealthy, as an observer, to have such a powerful sense of pride tied to a corporate enterprise that exists totally outside of an observer’s control. At some point we’ve all become a lost little lost — lost in the culture, lost in ourselves. The purpose of sport is to entertain us, distract us, bond us.

It’s ironic that as a person grows older, the further from sports enlightenment they seem to get. No one enjoys sports more than kids. They just get sports more than we do. So, is the secret, as an adult, to approach and consume sports with a childish disposition: ignorant, happy, silly, and all that? It seems like everyone following sports is nursing something childish inside. There’s innocence in sports fans but we’re losing it. I can feel it — can you?

I want to stay innocent with respect to my loyalty in sports. I think it’s the easiest way to have fun. Life takes enough of our innocence, wouldn’t you say?

I’m trying — I’m trying to limit my media intake, both traditional and social, in attempt to preserve my only sports loyalty. I’m obviously deep enough into the culture of sports to be aware of everything I just spent 800 words describing. Like most, I do want to protect the Sabres from being labeled as something ugly. But I have to say — it freaks me out to read how intensely people are willing to defend Terry Pegula. It concerns me to read just how legitimately offended people get when someone body checks Ryan Miller. Neither is deserving of being called scandalous, obviously, but Pegula addressing the Penn State scandal and the Lucic/Miller fallout were certainly controversial topics. Both conversations quickly escalated to a place where I totally lost the will to participate. I guess I’m not completely corrupted yet.