by Todd Maternowski

Time to simmer down, football fans.

Good morning, hockey fans! Here's hoping the long layoff between games hasn't left Dallas Stars hockey a fleeting, hazy memory: With San Jose and Phoenix on the immediate horizon, the Stars need positive vibes from their fabtastic fans more than ever. Well, until next month, when the games actually start to matter.

Last week we gave the shootout-starved Stars something succulent to stew on; this week, I was planning on writing my tri-annual Hockey's Most Metal Moments (#14 - James "Leviathan" Neal scores twice in the shootout on the same wicked wrister, chasing Ba'al from net and ensuring the safe return of the Ice Girls from Lucifer's Fortress of Cold Iron), but in light of recent events -- namely, the Cowboys' startling four-game winning streak -- it's time for hockey afficianados to ask themselves the tough questions.

Namely, if hockey is so effing metal, why is it not as popular as the NFL?

When the NHL was selling expansion to the southern U.S. as a viable option, Gary's Bett-buddies kept bringing up the same seemingly-logical stat: that football fans would naturally gravitate towards the lightning-fast, violent, and physical sport of hockey like maggots to roadkill. Here in the Great State of Texas, that meant one thing: Cowboy fans would have something to watch in the downtime between their annual Superbowl parades and training camp that would temporarily satiate their unquenchable thirst for pain.

What has actually happened -- other than the Stars robbing the 'Boys of their post-season mojo, as the Cowboys have gone 0-fer in the playoffs since the Northstars uprooted themselves for the browner pastures of Tejas -- is that the Cowboys have inexplicably maintained their dominance over the casual sports fan, while hockey has appealed almost exclusively to the hardcore sports fan. Anecdotally, at least -- according to these reams of statistics I've recently made up -- it seems casual football fans are slow to take hockey to heart, even with the (occasional) playoff success and (relatively recent) championship. Why is that?

Part of it, of course, is the Southern obsession with Celebrity: When Tony Romo is making more headlines at TMZ than ESPN, you know you're roping in the casual fan (i.e., your mom and the gals down at Supercuts); the Stars gave it a go with the lone NHL player with his own publicist, and disaster ensued.

But I've got another Unfounded Theory: that the basic structure of the game, where goals are worth one "point," is about as American as Escargot Pie.

As citizens of the wealthiest empire in world history, the foundation of our power has always been our willingness to spendspendspend -- the second our nation's web developers and corporate analysts realize that their 60-inch flatscreen is just as acceptable as the shiny new 72-inch model fresh off the truck, our paper-thin power pyramid would collapse faster than the Sharks in the first round. In order to maintain our empire's dominance, then, we've been subjected our entire lives to non-stop barrage of BUYBUYBUY AND YOU WILL BE HAPPYHAPPYHAPPYJOYJOYJOY!!!

What does this have to do with hockey? Simple: We like our experiences in watching sports to match or exceed the rollercoaster highs and lows we experience every second of our goddamned day. It's what I like to call the 4th-and-99 Insanity Theory: In football, the ragtag underdog (i.e., the viewer) can overcome seemingly insurmountable odds (i.e., his miserable life) with a simple 99-yard touchdown with no time left on the clock against the best team in the universe in the championship game while the voluptuous cheerleader watches (i.e., buying the winning lottery ticket).

The other major sports all have the same ridiculous emotional release: Baseball's got the hitless, bespectacled schlepp belting the grand slam with two outs and two strikes in the bottom of the ninth, while even basketball has the five-point between-the-legs granny shot from underneath your own basket.

Hockey? Each goal is worth one point. No three-point no-look between-the-legs goalie shots from their own crease to erase a 2-goal deficit with 00.1 seconds left on the clock. Instead, the last-second goal, at best, either ties the game with 00.1 seconds left or puts you ahead in a tie-game with 00.1 seconds left. Excuse me, did you just say the two most exciting last-second adolescent fantasy scoring options both involve... uhh.... ties?? Unfortunately for hockey, yes.

As we speak, the NHL GMs are meeting to discuss head shots, having solved hockey's other hot-button issue of the goalie-hatin' trapezoid. For the Future of the Game in America -- especially the Bible-totin' Dirty Souf -- here's hoping the GMs have the wisdom and foresight to add a three-point blindfolded from-your-own-crease-while-sitting-down shot that will elevate hockey to the august ranks of the other three major sports ... before hardcore fans start leaving in droves.

That's it for this week's Cupcheck. Tune in next week when I applaud the NHL's decision to bring in SEC referees to officiate all remaining Penguins games, ensuring that the retroactively-undefeated Crosbys will not lose another game this season.

What do you think?