Is it better to be wise than savvy?

Honest people can disagree, and set the parameters for discussion on their own blogs of course, but I would posit that wise refers to the long term; savvy is more near sighted.

So what has me waking up wondering this, akin to the old Aha song? Well, hockey of course. The NHL strike appears settled, and there are no winners, except maybe the game, and in a true ripple effect -- the fans. Let me explain:

Some of the proposed rule changes, aimed at improving scoring chances and creating greater parity, (or more accurately, eliminating obstacles to parity) seem to this amateur observer long overdue. No slow-down-the-game skirmishes away from the puck's action, smaller protective equipment for the goalie (not diminishing his safety, but opening up more legit opportunities for the offense... well, rather than me paraphrase further, let me just pull the info directly from http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=2104511 The next 3 paragraphs are theirs. (no direct link -- I doubt they need me to feed their site with traffic: )
-----------
In a league memo obtained by USA Today, director of hockey operations Colin Campbell outlined 13 possible rules changes that are being considered by the newly-formed rules committee, which is comprised of players, general managers and an owner.

Campbell's memo said the rules changes would "let the skill players play, increase scoring chances, maintain physicality of [the] game, take away defensive team's tools [and] give to offense, [change the] culture [and] entertain."

According to USA Today, some of the proposals include allowing zero tolerance for interference away from the puck; reducing the size of goaltending equipment and limiting how goalies can handle the puck; ejecting players who get an instigator penalty in the game's final five minutes; and giving players who shoot the puck into the stands from the defensive end a two-minute penalty; altering the icing rule; and eliminating tie games by first going to a four-on-four five-minute overtime period, then playing three minutes of three-on-three and finally switching to a three-man shootout if the score is still tied. The memo also suggests two points for a win and no points for an overtime loss, although that is expected to face heavy opposition.
--------
Sounds to me like the game -- and fans of a good clean game of hockey (no oxymoron there) -- would win if some of these are implemented. Why?

The knock against hockey is, at the professional level, it's a goon sport. More about hitting and physical intimidation than perfecting skating and passing, and playing the puck. Savvy players currently can manipulate the rules in playing defense to slow down scoring chances. So, for example, ejecting those players who get an instigator penalty in the game's final five minutes might lead to behavior modification, to use a new-age term. Hey, we are trying to slightly change a culture here.

Similarly, I was reaching in my paraphrase of "zero tolerance for interference away from the puck" but this was listed first, you can see. The stereotype of the fan who goes to a hockey game to see a fight, the gloves-off blood-on-the-ice excitement, appeals to some, I won't deny that. But focusing on what's wise, the league cannot deny that changes must be made at the professional level for the good of the game.

Hockey is a physical game. That's what we like about it. If you have the puck, you better do something with it -- pass or skate it quickly, with the puck firmly under your control. Otherwise, the other team is after it naturally, and a good clean check is fair game. To me, that is the best part of the game. Making the other team work for it, but playing by the rules and staying out of the penalty box. When it works, the beauty of the sport cannot be denied. It is played in the present, and teamwork, strategy, and will matter.

I've argued here before that those sounding the death knell for professional hockey are ignoring the youth leagues, quite popular in the north at least. Those boys and girls will grow up to sit in the stands, and believe me if you will, hockey is evolving into a family sport. They care about the game, even if the folks in their 20s and up have turned off and on to other sports. At those youth levels, penalties are enforced, and goon behaviour is not cheered.

The skating, cardiovascular energy, and speed of the game excite. If these rule modifications -- along with the salary restructuring and greater emphasis on marketing players and teams -- can significantly change the game, bringing it up to speed with what we expect from our 21st century sports, the long-term fan will win.

Hockey by its nature functions as a true team sport, and some might worry that marketing certain players and giving greater opportunities to hungry offenses might take away from this and make the sport more star-driven. I don't. Remember MJ, to switch to a different sport? And Kerr's 3 pointers, and Rodman's rebounds? And the underrated (next to MJ) Scottie Pippen? Great play inspires other teammates to greatness too, and only improves the game -- as well as the play of your opponents.

Competition is a fact of life, true independence is its own reward, and teammwork essential to survival. Changes to the rules are necessary where the rules themselves disadvantage those offensive players who want to see the fruits of their labors, not be shut down by actions that deserve penalty time. You want fights, turn on boxing. You want hockey, look to the youngsters in the upcoming leagues who love the game and are working to better themselves and their skills. I could even see this game expanding to growing international markets -- ie./the Pacific Rim countries.

Competition is good, true independence -- standing up straight, carrying your own weight -- is healthy, and the proposed contract settlement and rule changes appear to recognize this. A short-term loss for a long-term gain is wise, not savvy, and playing in the present will keep you in the game tomorrow. Thanks for reading my blog. Go Wild.