John "thats not football" torts

[Toppy Vann]

SJ.. remember one thing here.

Many like me just saw a tweet or the one liner - that alone is destined to not be forgotten by others.

Again, we read headlines and at times they are wrong given the facts that aren't read.

You're very correct, Toppy.

The truth is, the quote as it was presented just struck me as a very preposterous thing to say, even by JT's standards. TBH I was initially somewhat perturbed by the remark and if my sleuthing hadn't turned up truths to the contrary I would have joined the chorus in criticising him. This happily wasn't the case so I wanted to clarify the situation. KIA seems not to be sold on my arguments but I guess you can't please everybody.

This episode has made me envision the following thought experiment. Let's turn this around and suppose, purely hypothetical situation, Benevides made a remark about the Canucks that came off rather cutting from the way the media framed it. What would the reaction on here be? Would we just let it slide? Would we jump down his throat? Or would we reserve comment until we got more facts to see if the truth turned out to be rather more innocent than what we were initially led to believe?

Probably if the Lions HC trashed the Canucks or NHL some would cheer while I'd hope most of us would whoa, what are you thinking!!!

I think we CFL fans are more sensitive as we've heard the NFL wannabees and the hockey folks ad nauseum for too long...lol

[sj-roc]

This episode has made me envision the following thought experiment. Let's turn this around and suppose, purely hypothetical situation, Benevides made a remark about the Canucks that came off rather cutting from the way the media framed it. What would the reaction on here be? Would we just let it slide? Would we jump down his throat? Or would we reserve comment until we got more facts to see if the truth turned out to be rather more innocent than what we were initially led to believe?

Probably if the Lions HC trashed the Canucks or NHL some would cheer while I'd hope most of us would whoa, what are you thinking!!!

And frankly this would bother me. Why? Let me explain. We often lament that the crowds @BCP aren't what they could be and that there should be more people coming through the gates. Occasionally there's even a voice or two expressing indignation at the Canucks for supposedly stealing our thunder, e.g., some segments of the media covering the latest Cancuks preseason game while the Lions are in the midst of a late season drive to clinch first place.

But let's think about something here. The Canucks are the top sports team in this market. Like it or not, there's a large segment of the population here who would consider themselves "Canuck fans", some passionately so, others maybe more casual but at the very least not hostile to their existence. Right now, that's a fact for this market. It has been for some time and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. Now let's assume here for the sake of argument that the Lions, like many of us, actually WANT to grow their attendance, as opposed to growing their revenues, as per another facet of the attendance debate we've gone through in depth on here. The corollary here is that in order for the Lions to grow their attendance, they will pretty much by necessity have to grow their appeal to people who are.... you guessed it, Canuck fans. So let's say that one way or the other they set about doing this.

Now let's forget I'm sj-roc. Let's say instead I'm such a Canuck fan that the Lions have reached out to. I haven't really cared all that much one way or the other about attending Lions games. I've maybe watched a few Lions games on tv each year and I recognise a handful of the bigger names: the Lulays and the Harrises. Finally I decide maybe it's about time I go about actually attending a game or two and experiencing some of the excitement in person. I figure why not get on the internet and see if there's any fan forums for people to talk Lions. Eventually I wander into this board, and lo and behold I discover some people who not only don't care all that for the Canucks but who practically go out of their way expressing animosity towards my favourite team and/or people who haven't been coming out to BCP, as if they were somehow neglecting their civic duty. Huh? This is all very alienating to me. Maybe I shouldn't bother going to a game after all. The guy sitting next to me might catch me checking the hockey scores on my phone and throw insults at me or even try to pick a fight or something. My uncle used to go to games all the time and he'd tell me about how he often saw fights.

So the crowds continue to stagnate, and the cycle of indignation continues. There are already a million reasons people don't go to Lions games. Let's not be reason #1,000,001. We are some of the most hardcore Lions fans there are and I feel we should be taking an unofficial ambassador role in helping to grow the fanbase. Now I wouldn't go as far to say we're killing the Lions, far from it. In fact, I feel we're a positive force on the whole of it. But like the Lions on the field themselves, there's always room for improvement, room to better ourselves. For example, by not going overboard over every last little slight to the Lions (real or perceived), and not taking a knee-jerk hostile position to "outsiders" who commit such slights. Which brings me to my next point.

I think we CFL fans are more sensitive as we've heard the NFL wannabees and the hockey folks ad nauseum for too long...lol

We need to get past this. Seriously. I just don't get why we need the validation of some third party to make us feel better about the league we enjoy. Can't we just enjoy it for what it is, without regard to what others think about it or the fact that there are other things in which people (many people, in fact) might have more interest? Are we this insecure with everything in our lives? Our tastes in music? in movies? in restaurants? in whatever?

Now I know there will be some of you reading this and thinking to yourselves, wow, this guy is taking a pretty condescending stand over this. I want to address the closing remarks of my post to this subset of the readership.

I can honestly say there was a time in the past when I once harboured some of the very same attitudes I've criticised above. Maybe I never voiced them as passionately as others have, but they were there nonetheless. But over time, my thinking has evolved away from this stance. Somewhere along the way, and it didn't happen overnight, I gradually came to the realisation that being a Lions fan isn't about being validated by the rest of society. It's not about me, or any other individual person. It's about something bigger than that. It's about being part of a community, and being part of a community that is worth belonging to. So let's aspire to continue building this community. A community that's inclusive. One that doesn't care what other communities some of our membership might belong to. One that recognises that yes, you can belong to other communities as well as ours. Is this such an unrealistic goal? I think not.

[sj-roc]

let's aspire to continue building this community. ... One that recognises that yes, you can belong to other communities as well as ours.

As long as that other community is not Roughrider fans. Because if there's one thing we can ALL agree on, those guys suck

[Tighthead]

Torts is just busting balls. Nothing to see here.

[KnowItAll]

Torts is just busting balls. Nothing to see her.

no he isn't. he is expressing his true opinion.

[sj-roc]

Torts is just busting balls. Nothing to see her.

no he isn't. he is expressing his true opinion.

Have you listened yet to all the audio that I quoted in my 1st post in this thread?

And I'll ask again: even if he really meant what he said in a malicious tone, why do you need JT's validation of the CFL?

[Tighthead]

Torts is just busting balls. Nothing to see her.

no he isn't. he is expressing his true opinion.

What do you cite in support of your conclusion? Please be specific.

[Toppy Vann]

I agree SJ, you don't need to knock the other team or product to build your preferred product if that is the CFL.

The CFL and Lions need to rethink their marketing and look to how soccer empires in Man U, Man City now and how they do it and keep doing it despite being huge.

Growing the game beyond just TV is key.

[KnowItAll]

Torts is just busting balls. Nothing to see her.

no he isn't. he is expressing his true opinion.

Have you listened yet to all the audio that I quoted in my 1st post in this thread?

And I'll ask again: even if he really meant what he said in a malicious tone, why do you need JT's validation of the CFL?

I am not going to listen to an hr of crap radio that I never listen to just to confirm what I already believe.

I saw enough to assess and pass judgement on the clip shown on tv.

I never said that he was malicious, just that he meant what he said and was not joking.

to me it was clear in his inflection, and body language. it was a reflex reaction that he ended up trying to backpedal out of. it showed his true opinion.

anyone who disses the cfl in any way is forever in my doghouse.

I have stated my opinion. See no need to say more.

[sj-roc]

I am not going to listen to an hr of crap radio that I never listen to just to confirm what I already believe.

So basically, you're outright REFUSING to consider any of the evidence I've presented while failing to present any of your own. You've had numerous chances to consider the full body of evidence and you've evaded the opportunity at every turn. Why? If you're so convinced you're right, what do you have to lose?

I saw enough to assess and pass judgement on the clip shown on tv.

I didn't see any of this on tv (but if anyone has a video link offer, please do). How much? I gave you a transcript of the audio. I bet it was more than you heard.

I never said that he was malicious, just that he meant what he said and was not joking.

If he really "meant what he said and was not joking", then how can that NOT be malicious? You've really lost me here. Please elaborate. And if it wasn't malicious, then why are you so affronted?

to me it was clear in his inflection, and body language. it was a reflex reaction that he ended up trying to backpedal out of. it showed his true opinion.

Ok, speaking of backpedalling, give me your take on his "I'm sorry, Ben" comment. Doesn't it strike you as awfully peculiar that this "backpedalling" was directed at one specific person? Why do you think this was the case?

anyone who disses the cfl in any way is forever in my doghouse.

Hope you have a lot of lumber. I'm sure JT is in tears over your grievance. BTW, is your doghouse on foreign soil? Because that's where you said in your OP that you wanted to banish him.

I have stated my opinion. See no need to say more.

You've stated your opinion, but offered not a single shred of evidence (that I haven't thoroughly refuted) to support it.

Maybe you "see no need to say more", but no one on this board has supported your viewpoint since I clarified the situation almost 24 hours ago. Hope you never end up in court. If you're so confident in your viewpoint, what do you have to be afraid of by listening to the audio? Not to mention you were pretty disingenuous about it with talk of wonky speakers. If you weren't prepared to listen to it from the get-go why didn't you just say so in the first place instead of tossing out such a red herring?

Well, I'm sure the Lions are grateful they have someone like you watching out for the integrity of their brand.

Oh, BTW, here's a bunch of funny image macros you might enjoy. They always crack me up. But make sure you read beyond the top half of each one; otherwise you might miss the humour.

[Toppy Vann]

I've learned if someone is set to argue their point and ignore all evidence to the contrary you end up wasting time on them.

The mark of intelligence as has been said by those smarter than I is to be able to hold two competing thoughts simultaneously and consider both sides.

Dogmatists will always ignore other viewpoints or evidence as it doesn't square with what they want to believe or they will like other odd posters twist and convolute what was said by others. It's no wonder this type fare poorly in business and relationships.

[sj-roc]

I do have some afterthoughts on this debate we've had but I think your thread is the best place for these rather than here so I'll be posting it over there.

Ok, back here as promised with some afterthoughts. I want to explain why I took such a confrontational stance to your OP.

I can assure you it has nothing to do with any loyalty to JT or the Canucks. TBH I don't consider myself a fan of either. But at the same time this doesn't mean I hate them, either. To me, they're just there in the landscape as one small part of it among many other components, most of which I never give very much thought to, one way or the other.

So what does it have to do with, then? Well, one of my values as a contributor on this board is to be seen as someone who takes a careful view of things and strives to go about it in a prejudice-free manner. It would be very easy, for example, for a CFL fan to automatically take a dim view to any perceived slight on their league, whether it's justified or not. But that’s not how I want to roll. I want to consider all the facts and see if there's something underneath the surface that puts a different complexion on the situation. If this is the case, then I have no compunction about voicing an "unpopular" opinion and presenting said evidence to support it.

Now why would I go to all this trouble? Simple. There will be times when an issue arises and the facts DO happen to align with one's prejudices. When this time comes and you want to express your view, you don't want your critics to dismiss your position as being biased. You want to be able to point to your track record and show that, "Look, I've taken positions before that didn't align with my natural prejudices. If I really am biased now, then I would have been biased then, too. But I wasn't then, and I'm not now, either. This is all about the facts."

I cited an example of this situation in my first post that most readers of this board, and I'm sure even yourself, will recall as it was a point of some contention on this board. Tony Gallagher wrote an article a few years back dismissing the challenge of being a winning team in the CFL. "Players jumping around like they cured cancer" (paraphrase/near-quote) and all that. I have no compunction in stating that this was truly odious journalism. Yes, as a CFL fan I would be predisposed to take this view. But Glen Suitor was also incensed with the article. He played 11 CFL seasons (1984-1994) and his team didn't once get a sniff of the playoffs until his 5th season. Overall the Roughriders played in just 8 postseason games over his career with a 3-5 record (all the wins came en route to their 1989 championship). GS is a guy who knows first-hand that winning a Grey Cup isn't some lark, and he even debated TG live on 1040 over the article.

Anyway, I made the point in that first post that the current JT incident was an entirely different animal from the TG episode and by doing so I was trying to show objectivity and impartiality toward JT, that I wasn't simply appealing to my natural predisposition, that I was taking the nuances of both episodes into account.

So I hope this clarifies my position a little. If you felt at any point like I was personally attacking you, I want to say that this was never my intent and I tried my level best to keep it all about the facts. Sometime later on, here on this board, you might find yourself in another debate with someone else and you have my word that I won't let this episode influence my thoughts on who's in the right and who's in the wrong.

One more thing... I also want to comment on the audio file that I mentioned early on in our debate. I'll write it in another separate post to break things up a bit.

[sj-roc]

I also want to comment on the audio file that I mentioned early on in our debate. I'll put this in a separate post to break things up a bit.

Ok, so my review of the audio file from 1040's archives was key to my stance. It is rather unfortunate that this particular file seems to be somewhat corrupt, in the sense that despite numerous attempts it would not download properly like so many other files that I have D/L'ed from them in the past (kept stalling at the 91% mark). I finally had to play the file directly in my browser to listen to it, which was rather frustrating as it had no running clock where I could have pointed out, JT said this at this time and that at that other time. I could only transcribe the words and I had to "rewind" it several times for this and not having the running clock to know where to re-cue the file further hampered this process.

Fortunately I succeeded today in D/L'ing it, by alternative means: after loading it into my browser to play as per above, I saved the webpage to desktop (clicked File > Save Page As on Firefox) and I was able to snag it this way.

I don't know if you ever plan on listening to it KIA, and I suppose that's your prerogative one way or the other, but should you decide to do so, I can now give you some key times to cue up. There's only about three minutes in total that you really need to listen to altogether, but it happens to lie in two distant chunks, basically just 9:30-11:30 and 26:50-27:55. I'll quote from my first post and add some cue-up times in bold italics for various points of the dialogue:

(9:30)Matt Sekeres is talking and awaiting the start of JT's daily press conference, and just as he stops to cut into it live, (10:00)a reporter whose identity I cannot establish (prob doesn't matter), apparently knowing that John Tortorella is originally from Boston and a New England Patriots fan, asks him what was going through his mind regarding the Pats comeback over the Broncos the previous (Sunday) night. Tortorella is initially uncertain whether his comments are "for the paper, or are we just talking? Or for whatever you guys do, whatever... ?" Anyway he goes on bantering about the Pats/Broncos game with some of the reporters for a while, rehashing what a great game it was and singling out Wes Welker for blame in the Broncos' loss.

(10:50)Eventually a reporter (perhaps the same as the first one, again doesn't really matter) brings up the Grey Cup, "Did you watch the football game earlier in the day? The one up here? Something called the Grey Cup?" At this point JT utters the contentious remark:

JT: "That's not football." This draws some howls from the assembled media. He continues:

JT: "Yes. Yes. Yeah, the end zones are as big as a regular football..." [it sounds like "field" is going to be his next word here, but he pauses and changes tack at this point] "I don't know all the rules, but I'd just better leave this one alone. (chuckling) I'm sorry, Ben." (Wait a second. Who's Ben? It's not clear at this point but the answer, as I get into below, goes a long way in explaining things.)

Reporter (or perhaps the addressed Ben, doesn't matter much): "There's something called a rouge in Canadian football."

JT, repeating: "I'm sorry, Ben."

Presumably Ben: "I'm outta here."

JT: "Well if I do that and you're outta here, I'll do it more often." (more chuckles and howls from the media)

Reporter: "Did you see Tom Hanks last night?"

JT: "No." [This is about (11:26) by this point]

At this point the conversation turns to hockey and the matter of football never really comes up for the rest of 1040's coverage. Eventually they throw back to Matt before the presser even ends. He defers discussion of anything JT has said to discuss some other matters for the rest of the segment (specifically, the dominance and greater competitiveness of Western conference teams in many sports over their Eastern counterparts: CFL, NHL, MLB, NFL).

They cut to commercial and return, (26:50) with Canucks' 1040 colour man Dave Tomlinson joining MS for the next segment to rehash JT's presser (which is still going on even at this point).

(27:35)MS: "(JT) was having a little fun there with Ben Brown, the Canucks communications manager who is from the province of Saskatchewan."

DT: "Well, actually, Ben was sitting three rows in front of me out here in the stands so he was alluding to Ben."

MS: "Oh, really? (He) wasn't even there..."

DT: "He wasn't even there."

MS: "...to defend his province and his team?"

DT: "Yeah, (JT) was having some fun."

MS: "Gotcha." [This is about (27:55) by this time] At which point MS & DT leave the football matter and proceed to discuss hockey from this point.

So for yourself and anyone else who might like to scrutinise it, hope this helps.

Also worth mentioning, which I have NOT thus far at any point: toward the end of this same audio file, there's a segment with Glen Suitor starting around (38:55) and running through to about (49:00). Given GS's reaction to TG's "curing cancer" article it might have been interesting to get his take this time on JT but the topic never comes up in the whole segment. The fact that it never comes up also makes me think it was never intended as a big put-down on JT's part, because it might have made for good radio to get GS going on it (not quite Jen Mather on Pratt but you know what I mean). Instead, they mostly just re-hash the Grey Cup game played the day before and agree with each other in lamenting the league's decision to keep confidential the protected lists for the upcoming Ott expansion draft.

Well, this turned out to be a whole lot more than I initially planned on saying today on this topic! But I think this should wrap it.

[KnowItAll]

They cut to commercial and return, (26:50) with Canucks' 1040 colour man Dave Tomlinson joining MS for the next segment to rehash JT's presser (which is still going on even at this point).

(27:35)MS: "(JT) was having a little fun there with Ben Brown, the Canucks communications manager who is from the province of Saskatchewan."

DT: "Well, actually, Ben was sitting three rows in front of me out here in the stands so he was alluding to Ben."

MS: "Oh, really? (He) wasn't even there..."

DT: "He wasn't even there."

MS: "...to defend his province and his team?"

DT: "Yeah, (JT) was having some fun."

Well, this turned out to be a whole lot more than I initially planned on saying today on this topic! But I think this should wrap it.

hey sj, just to show my consistency which you questioned lately. You seem to be forming your opinion on what these "media" guys were saying about it afterwards, and since I am so anti media, I say theses comments of theirs are usual media crap. so there

I just have no patience to listen to so much audio, like talk radio. For me, radio is music and traffic reports. I hate talk radio.

I appreciate all you have said in your post and respect it.

Maybe if torts is seen at the next grey cup having lots of fun and talking about why he likes the CFL game, I might then change my thinking on this.

[darnellclash]

I hate basketball and soccer....I guess that makes me an ignorant Canadian?? No thats my personal preference.

If I grew up in the USA with the NFL, why would I even pay attention to the CFL? It wouldn't even be on my radar, much less on TV.

I love hockey and the NHL. Sweden has a hockey league, do I care ....no.

I grew up watching the CFL and if someone asked me about NFL Europe or the WWE football league what would I say? I dont watch it, it sucks or I have no idea what you are talking about.

So better that Torts lies and says he loves the CFL to appease the KIA's of the world I guess. Yah we want a liar for a head coach.

DC out