The obnoxious thing about it is that it won't make Russian professional hockey more viable. It won't do anything he's hoping it will do. It will just make Russian hockey crappy because nobody who's playing it will give a damn. And anybody who gives a damn will turn their efforts toward activities that aren't subject to repression.
How do I know? Because it already happened with Russian sports. And industry. And art. And everything else. Forcing people to do something stifles motivation, creativity, passion, hard work, and effort. It NEVER increases them. Ask Slava, it's exactly how he felt in 1989.
Though with art and creativity, some of the best stuff was the result of oppression. Just take a look at the films from Eastern Europe that were banned in the 50's, 60's and 70's, the most brilliant art ever committed to celluloid. It's a terrible reason to oppress, obviously and I'm disappointed in Fetisov. It's going to be a monumental task to create a culture shift in Russia, the roots are so deep.
If you're going to ban guys from coming to the NHL, what are you going to do when they defect? Or refuse to play for the national team? Are you going to have travel bans? Are you going to beat them? Are you going to threaten their families?
If they could get away with it they would, that ideology is only a short stroll from the one Fetisov is supporting.
Blech. I feel like the focus on statistics and fancy stats is ruining sports for me. It's turning away from a competition of will, luck, opportunity and whatnot and turning into a predictable pseudo-science.
If it's predictable it's hardly a pseudo-science, that's actually one of the staples of real science.
Babcock did mentor Blashill as an assistant. Seems many here forget Blashill was an assistant coach with the Wings for a year in the 11-12 season and then was...sent down...promoted? to head coach of the Griffins.
I dont think people forget that, it gets brought up all the time.
I'm certain Blashill is in the best spot to replace Babcock if he leaves, particularly if the Griffins do well, although that may not matter.
On a side note, I do think he's a great coach, but I would trade him for Quenville if that was an option. I'm hesitant to want him gone because I don't know what better options there are, which admittedly is influenced by ignorance, I'm not an authority on coach talent. But if coaches do have shelf lives, I don't think we're a new coach away from a Stanley cup, so if roster adjustments are made as well I wouldn't be too sad to try something new.
Is it possible he didn't sign with Detroit because he doesn't really want to? There could be many reasons why, such as he is self aware of a coach's shelf life and realizes even if he's a good coach staying in Detroit won't amount to much. Those are things you won't tell the media.
Is it also possible that the reasons he might stay are family concerns? Which even if you're dream is to be Bowman v.2 your family takes precedence.
The media hype is ridiculous but that's the nature of media. More realistically Babcock is human and has a tough decision to make and is making the best of it, or even just trying to at least get as much $ out of the deal if he has to stay at job he no longer wants.
While this is all speculation you see how what we don't know vastly trumps what we do. I don't know much about him personally, maybe he's a giant, selfish dick. The media is just grabbing dollars, what Babcock is doing will be revealed when his future ex-wife writes her memoir.