Chicago Blackhawks Win the Stanley Cup: Why I'm Happy It's Over

Darrell HorwitzSenior Writer IIJune 10, 2010

PHILADELPHIA - JUNE 09:  Marian Hossa #81 of the Chicago Blackhawks hoists the Stanley Cup after teammate Patrick Kane #88 scored the game-winning goal in overtime to defeat the Philadelphia Flyers 4-3 and win the Stanley Cup in Game Six of the 2010 NHL Stanley Cup Final at the Wachovia Center on June 9, 2010 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  (Photo by Al Bello/Getty Images)
Al Bello/Getty Images

Patrick Kane's goal in overtime yesterday ended a 49-year wait for rabid Chicago Blackhawk fans and sent the city into delirium.

So why am I happy it's over?

For starters, I'm not a rabid fan of the team. I grew up watching hockey and I used to love the sport until a couple of generations of Wirtz's ruined the game for me and thousands of other fans in Chicago.

One of my best sports memories growing up was watching a Hawk playoff game with my dad. Facing the New York Rangers, Bobby Hull won it in overtime on a slap shot off the face-off.

Hockey is probably the most exciting major sport, with very few breaks in the action. Nothing tops overtime in the playoffs.

But I'm tired of hearing about it all day on the sports radio stations. It seems like it's 24-hour Hawk talk.

I know the Chicago baseball teams stink, but it's the summer. I want to hear the hosts and the callers discussing the games and what can be done to change things, whether the manager needs to be fired or a trade has to be made.

It's also the "Summer of LeBron." He could be coming to the Windy City. What could be more exciting than that?

If he's wearing a Bulls uniform next year, hockey won't even exist in Chicago during the winter.

Sure, the Hawks will probably still be very good, but the core of their fans are bandwagon-jumpers that want to be in on what's currently hot.

If LeBron is wearing the Bulls' horns, there won't be a hotter ticket in town.

Face the facts; basketball is far more popular than hockey is, as the numbers prove when the two are compared on the national scale. Hockey has exceeded expectations. But basketball normally brings three times the audience that hockey generates, even on a bad day.

I'm glad the Hawks won, but I don't know what to say about hockey. I can criticize the manager in baseball, or question a challenge in football, or wonder about the substitution pattern in basketball, but what can I do with hockey?

I plead ignorance. I wouldn't know what to talk about if I called in to a radio show, and I don't care what others have to say.

Even most of the hosts have had to brush up on their hockey knowledge with the ascension of the team. They never even used to talk about the Blackhawks on the radio. Now, it's non-stop.

Football is almost here and they'll talk about that until the Super Bowl.

So where do I get my Cubs and Bulls talk?

They are far more interesting to talk about than hockey, unless your name is Dan McNeil and you work for the "Score" in Chicago. That's all he ever wants to talk about.

He put the question out the other day and a lot of fans were calling in saying they were tired of hearing only about the Hawks.

In fact, he said he doesn't like basketball and rarely watches the games. Shouldn't the host of a sports show in a town fully associated with Michael Jordan be required to follow and talk basketball?

Is it his show, or is it the show of the fans? Ratings are based on listeners, and I change the station when I keep hearing babble about the Hawks, but I have nowhere to go to hear anything else.

So I'm really happy the Hawks won, because now all that's left is the parade. Hopefully, that means just one more day of Hawk hysteria.

Does this bother anyone, or is it sour grapes on my part?

As Harry Caray used to say during the seventh inning stretch at Wrigley Field, "Let me hear ya!"