Some hockey fans don’t need facts in dynasty debate
Chicago Blackhawks centre Jonathan Toews (19) celebrates after scoring a goal against the Los Angeles Kings during the third period in game one of the Western Conference Final of the 2014 Stanley Cup Playoffs at United Center, May 18, 2014; Chicago, IL. (Photo: Mandatory Credit: Jerry Lai-USA TODAY Sports)
I attended a family barbecue on Sunday hosted by some vocal Canucks fans.
And by vocal I mean they are the fire-everything-in-a-suit-and-trade-everything-that-skates kind of crowd.
No reasoning with them at all, and completely incapable of evolving their opinions even after facts are introduced into the equation.
I hit a nerve when I casually mentioned if the Chicago Blackhawks win the cup that would give them three titles in five years, which would immediately earn them dynasty consideration.
This was greeted by (expletive the Hawks!), the Habs won five straight in the 1950s.
No argument from me. The history books don't lie, the Canadiens were the NHL's first dynasty.
That’s when I poked the bear, and by bear I mean my dad.
“Remember when you said you'd never watch the CFL until they reached 10 teams?” I asked. “What was the word you used? Bush league? Too easy to win a championship?
“Well, dad, your Montreal Canadiens rolled off five straight in a six-team league. That's two less than the CFL. Actually, thanks to Ottawa, it's now three less. If Chicago wins again they will have secured their recent collection of cups in a 30-team league.”
All eyes on my dad.
Wheels clearly turning.
He gets up, walks over to the grill to fiddle with the ribs.
Then, suddenly, he erupts. “There's no way in hell I can get behind any team that employs Duncan (expletive) Keith!”
Not sure what that had to do with our dynasty debate, but it was a feel-good moment that the entire group could all get behind.