Something on my Mind: That Good Old Hockey Game (2)

That good old hockey game will soon start up in Seattle (as mentioned last week), and I'm all for it.

What are we going to call them, the Seattle Whodunits? A couple of names have been thrown around, the "Totems" being one of them. I followed the original Totems back in the '60s, in the old, old WHL, a semi-professional league.

Along with the Totems, there were the San Diego Gulls, Phoenix Roadrunners, Victoria Maple Leafs, and Portland Buckaroos —all very good names, most of which aren't being used much today—although I hear there are the "Maple Leafs" in the NHL.

I would go for a natural, local, or historical moniker for Seattle's new team. And that's why I also like the second option, the "Emeralds." Washington is the "Emerald State" so that's a natural choice and "Totems" is a historical one. As Seattle is the home of Starbucks franchise, maybe they could be the Seattle "Starbucks," for the local flavour, pun deliriously intended. Seattle Espresso? Lattes?

No, I don't think so. I think the first or second option would still get my vote.

Just as an aside, check all the professional and college teams in the various leagues and see how many have some sort of natural, local, or historical reference. Probably more than half.

I cite the following historical examples: Stampeders, 49ers, Tar Heels, Volunteers, Jazz, Oilers, Blue Jackets, Blackhawks, Canadiens (not Canadians), and a ton more. Each seem so weird, until one discovers the significance behind it. Even "Canucks" is slang (and not so kind ) for Canadian boys.

It sure beats the usual Bears, Eagles, and Bruins—all good names in and of themselves. Why not some other natural phenomena (Tornadoes or Typhoons), vicious animals (Vipers or Pythons), or dogs (Pit Bulls or Huskies)? I know there are some teams with those names, but too few and far between.

I'm even thinking of the Seattle Craigs—macho, tough and courageous--but I am too modest to suggest it. However, in that vein, Seattle Ants? Possums?

Speaking of expansion, there is an assumption that there are already too many teams –-31, plus the new Seattle franchise. I personally don't think so. The quality of players may be lower (again, something I question), but certainly the feeder levels are still strong. There are are a lot of up and coming players, from a wide variety of leagues, right across the globe.

As I don't have access to an area NHL team, nor to mountains of money if I did. Lethbridge, closer to me than Medicine Hat, is my first choice for hockey entertainment. I try to pop over for Hurricane games on a monthly basis.

I have written before about how quintessential Canadian hockey is, and I still hold to that. I'm still not sure what makes it so distinctly Canadian, though. A single focus, perhaps, with many expressions? The focus is for the home team to win, with more goals than the other team (obviously), along with the hits, fights, checks, and effort along the way. Just part of an overall entertainment package.

I'm just not sure how Canadian even that is. It may be part of the fibre of Canadian culture, the fact that many of these players are local boys--"local" meaning throughout western Canada.

That's one reason why I find it so strange that there are so many American teams in the NHL, especially those in the Deep South. Ice rinks and palm trees are a strange mix, wouldn't you agree? I suppose that strengthens Seattle's qualification, being so close to the Canadian border.

Well, here's to another 18,000 fans sitting, shouting, and singing, while twelve athletes do their thing with that hard, rubber disc on the frozen water.

Whatever they're called—Totems, Emeralds, or Craigs—I wish them all the best.